IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI TUESDAY, THE 17TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 26TH KARTHIKA 1931 Mat.Appeal.No. 899 of 2009() ---------------------------- I.A.NO.847/2009 IN O.P.NO.430/08 OF FAMILY COURT, PALAKKAD. APPELLANT: RESPONDENT/PETITIONER ------------------------------------ PRADEEPKUMAR,S/O.SANDANALAKSHMI, RESIDING AT NANDANAM,VEETTIKKATTU VEEDU, KAKKAYYUR,PALAKKAD. BY ADV. SRI.NAGARAJ NARAYANAN RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONER/RESPONDENT ------------------------------------ SOUMYA,D/O.MOHAN,RESIDING AT NIRMALYAM, ANAND NAGAR,KANNADI,PALAKKAD. THIS MATRIMONIAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ. * * * * * * * * * * * * * C.M.Application No.3362 of 2009 & Mat.Appeal No.899 of 2009 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 17th day of November 2009 O R D E R & J U D G M E N T Basant,J This petition is to condone the delay of 106 days in filing a Mat.Appeal which in turn is directed against an order passed under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act obliging the petitioner to pay an amount of Rs.4,000/- per mensum as maintenance and Rs.5000/- as litigation expenses. The proceedings before the Family Court that is O.P.No.430/08 has been initiated by the appellant/husband herein. In that petition, he claims a declaration of nullity of marriage. Solemnisation of marriage is thus admitted. 2. There is no serious dispute about the liability to pay maintenance. The only contention raised is that the quantum of maintenance awarded is excessive. As stated earlier, maintenance is awarded at the rate of Rs.4,000/- per mensum. Admittedly, the appellant is well employed. He is, without dispute, a Field Sales Executive of Hindustan Lever Limited. According to the respondent, he earns a monthly salary of Rs.30,000/-. The appellant denied the quantum of his monthly salary; but significantly did not choose to aver or show before court what exactly his monthly salary is. The court below, in these circumstances, came to the conclusion C.M.A.No.3362/2009 &M.A No.899/2009 2 that though the statement of the wife cannot be reckoned as gospel truth, in the absence of specific averment about the quantum of monthly salary and in the light of the admitted employment as a Field Sales Executive of Hindustan Lever Limited, it is absolutely reasonable to direct payment of an amount of Rs.4,000/- as monthly maintenance and Rs.5,000/- as litigation expenses. 3. We are satisfied that the delay in filing an appeal - 106 days can be condoned without notice to the respondent; but we are satisfied that this appeal does not merit admission at all. Even before this court, along with this appeal, nothing has been produced to show the actual monthly salary of the appellant. The learned counsel, at the Bar, submits that the total monthly income is only Rs.12,000/-. Even assuming that, we are not persuaded to agree that the quantum of monthly maintenance fixed calls for interference by invoking the appellate jurisdiction under Section 19 of the Family Court Act. 4. This Mat.Appeal is, in these circumstances, dismissed in limini. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) (M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE) jsr // True Copy// PA to Judge C.M.A.No.3362/2009 &M.A No.899/2009 2 C.M.A.No.3362/2009 &M.A No.899/2009 2 C.M.A.No.3362/2009 &M.A No.899/2009 2 R.BASANT & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ. .No. of 200 ORDER/JUDGMENT 29/07/2009