IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR THURSDAY, THE 30TH APRIL 2009 / 10TH VAISAKHA 1931 Crl.MC.No. 1438 of 2009() -------------------------------- CRL. M.P.NO.1143/2009 IN CRL.APPEAL NO. 214/2009 OF SESSIONS COURT, ERNAKULAM PETITIONER/RESPONDENT/PETITIONER : -------------------------------------------------- SOBHANA, AGED 30 YEARS, D/O.VELANDI GOVINDAN, RESIDING AT FLAT NO.5A, PLATINUM VISTA, 5TH FLOOR, SHASTHA TEMPLE ROAD, KALOOR, KOCHI-17. BY ADV. SMT.P.K.PRIYA RESPONDENTS/APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS: ------------------------------------------------------- 1. JAGADISH KARAT MENON @ JAGADISH KUMAR @ JAGADISH MENON AGED 33 YEARS, FULLERTON CREDIT INDIA LTD., 1ST FLOOR, 12/6919 (16), OPP.GERMAN PLAZA ABOVE HIMALAYA HERBALS, FO ROAD, PALAKKAD 678001 2. THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.AMJED ALI THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30/04/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V. RAMKUMAR, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Crl.M.C. No. 1438 of 2009 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this the 30th day of April, 2009 O R D E R Petitioner who is the wife of the 1st respondent herein had obtained an order for maintenance from the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court-I, Ernakulam in M.C. No. 72/2008. Aggrieved by the said order, the 1st respondent filed an appeal before the Sessions Court, Ernakulam as Crl. A. No.214/2009. Since the appeal was filed out of time, he had filed Crl.M.P. No.1143/2009 to condone the delay of 103 days in filing the appeal. Notice was ordered on the delay petition and it was duly served on the petitioner. However, on 1-4-2009 when the case was called, neither the petitioner nor her counsel was present before the court. The Sessions Court, accordingly, passed the impugned order on 1-4-2009 condoning the delay noticing the absence of the petitioner. It is the said order which is assailed in this Crl.M.C. 2. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that since the petitioner's daughter was to appear for her examination, the petitioner was not able to appear before the Sessions Court on that day. Whatever may be the reason which prevented the petitioner from appearing before the court below, the fact Crl.M.C. 1438/2009 -2- remains that the petitioner was absent. It is also admitted that she did not engage a lawyer. Under these circumstances, the learned Sessions Judge noted that there was no appearance for the petitioner herein before the court below. 3. Having regard to the fact that the view has been taken with regard to the matter of con donation of the delay, the learned Sessions Judge found fault with in condoning the delay of 103 days in filing the appeal. After all, the appeal is yet to be heard and the petitioner can very well opposing the bail and try to sustain the order impugned in the appeal. Since the learned counsel for the petitioner wanted to come on record before the court below, I am inclined to permit the petitioner to lodge her counter to C.M.P. No.1143/2009. However, it is made clear that the order condoning the delay having been validly passed stand as it is. 4. This revision petition is, accordingly, disposed of permitting the petitioner to file a counter to C.M.P. No. 1143/2009 before the Sessions Court and the appeal shall be disposed of in accordance with law after giving the petitioner also an opportunity of being heard. V.RAMKUMAR, JUDGE. mn.