IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI THURSDAY, THE 29TH OCTOBER 2009 / 7TH KARTHIKA 1931 Mat.Appeal.No. 518 of 2008(C) ---------------------------- OP.83/2006 of FAMILY COURT, KOTTARAKKARA .................... APPELLANT : RESPONDENT ------------------------- SADASIVAN, AGED 50, S/O.KUNJU KUNJU, KAIPPALLY VEEDU, ENADIMANGALAM VILLAGE, ADOOR TALUK. BY ADV. SRI. K.SHAJ RESPONDENT : PETITIONER ------------------------- ARCHANA, D/O. JAYAKUMARI, RETNA SADANAM, PADINJARE MURI, PIRAVANTHOOR VILLAGE, PATHANAPURAM TALUK. ADV. SRI.P.B.SURESH KUMAR FOR R1 THIS MATRIMONIAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ. ------------------------------------ Mat.Appeal No.518 of 2008 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 29th day of October, 2009 JUDGMENT BASANT, J. The appellant assails an order passed by the Family Court obliging him to pay maintenance @ Rs.300/- per mensem from the date of the petition to the date of marriage of the claimant and to pay an amount of Rs.50,000/- as the marriage expenses of the respondent. 2. Admittedly the respondent is the daughter of the appellant. The mother of the respondent and the appellant had divorced and both had remarried also. The respondent/claimant was living with her grandfather as per the averments. After she attained majority she staked her claim for maintenance and marriage expenses. The claim was resisted. Ability of the appellant to pay the amounts claimed was disputed. On merits, virtually we find no dispute raised before the court below. 3. The court below on an anxious consideration of the rival assertions came to the conclusion that the respondent is entitled for maintenance @ Rs.300/- per mensem from 10.05.05 Mat.Appeal No.518 of 2008 2 till her marriage. An amount of Rs.50,000/- was directed to be paid towards the marriage expenses. 4. The appellant claims to be aggrieved by the impugned order. What is the grievance ? The learned counsel fairly concedes that the direction for payment of maintenance is not challenged. But the counsel contends that the marriage expenses awarded at Rs.50,000/- is grossly excessive. That the marriage has taken place is not disputed. Even in the absence of better and more tangible evidence about the expenses for marriage, the court below felt, considering the totality of circumstances, that a direction to pay an amount of Rs.50,000/- as marriage expenses would be fair, reasonable and just. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the amount awarded as marriage expenses is grossly excessive. That is the short question that falls for consideration. 5. Having rendered our anxious consideration to all the relevant circumstances, we are not persuaded to agree that the quantum of expenses for marriage fixed by the court below needs or warrants interference invoking the appellate jurisdiction available with us under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act. The liability is not disputed. The quantum is the Mat.Appeal No.518 of 2008 3 only dispute. Of course, no better and more satisfactory evidence has been produced. But the learned Judge of the Family Court took note of the realities of life and the probable expenses that may have to be incurred to get the marriage of the claimant performed. The court below took note of the fact that the appellant is an employed person. He has remarried after divorce. He has a residential property though small. He had gifted a portion thereof to his second wife. The claimant was unemployed. Pendent assessment, we note, of the probable expenses for the marriage and the capacity of the appellant was made by the court below. It is thus that the court below fixed the amount on Rs.50,000/-. At any rate, we are not persuaded to interfere with that discretion exercised by the court below in evaluating and assessing the probable expenses that must have been incurred for the marriage. 6. This Matrimonial Appeal is, in these circumstances, dismissed in limine. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) (M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE) rtr/- Mat.Appeal No.518 of 2008 4 R.BASANT & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ. ------------------------------------ C.M.Appl.No. of 2008 in Mat.Appeal No.518 of 2008 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 29th day of October, 2009 ORDER BASANT, J. This petition is to condone the delay of 10 days in filing a matrimonial appeal. The respondent has entered appearance. We have heard both sides. We are proceeding to dispose of the appeal straight away. In these circumstances, we are satisfied that a lenient view can be taken and the delay can be condoned. 2. Petition allowed. Delay condoned. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) (M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE) rtr/-