IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI WEDNESDAY, THE 14TH JULY 2010 / 23RD ASHADHA 1932 Mat.Appeal.No. 203 of 2006(E) ---------------------------- Divorce O.P.No.705/01 of Family Court, Trichur .................................. APPELLANT : RESPONDENT. -------------------------- AZEEZ, S/O.KOYAKUTTY, AGED 53 YEARS, RAYAMMARKKAR HOUSE, RESIDING AT VADASSERY PURAM.P.O, MANNARKADU TALUK, PALAKKAD. (corrected as per order dated 20.12.06 on I.A.No.2418 of 2006) BY ADV. SRI.T.V.GEORGE RESPONDENT : PETITIONER. -------------------------- JUVAIRIA, D/O.ALIKUTTY, THALIKASSERY HOUSE, KARIKKAD P.O. ADV. SRI.P.SANJAY FOR R1 THIS MATRIMONIAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ. ********************** Mat.Appeal No.203 of 2006 ********************* Dated this the 14th day of July, 2010 ORDER/JUDGMENT BASANT, J. This petition is to condone the delay of 200 days in filing a matrimonial appeal. The appeal in turn is directed against a decree passed under Section 2 of the Dissolution of Muslim Marriage Act granting divorce under Section 2(ii) and 2(ix) of the said Act. There is a delay of 200 days in filing the appeal. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the delay occurred on account of reasons beyond the control of the appellant. 2. The learned counsel for the respondent submits that there is absolutely no merit or bona fides in the prayer for condonation of delay. The appellant had contracted another marriage and has 3 children in the said wedlock. The respondent is unwilling to continue as a co-wife along with the other wife. Conscious of all this, the appellant had not preferred the appeal in time. In these circumstances, the delay may not be condoned, prays the learned counsel for the respondent. Mat.Appeal No.203 of 2006 2 3. We have considered the rival submissions made. We have perused the affidavit. We are not satisfied that sufficient reasons have been shown to justify the prayer for condonation of delay. We do further note that the appellant is already married to another woman. From that point of view also, we find that a serious view must be taken about the prayer for condonation of delay. Following the decision in Abdurahiman v. Khairunneesa [2010 (1) KLT 891], remarriage of the Muslim husband can be reckoned as a valid reason for divorce when the wife is unwilling to continue in the status of a co-wife. We have looked into these circumstances only to satisfy ourselves that the rejection of the petition for condonation of delay does not result in any miscarriage of justice. 4. The petition for condonation of delay is, in these circumstances, dismissed. Consequently the Mat.Appeal shall stand rejected as barred by limitation. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) (M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE) rtr/