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 19TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 28TH KARTHIKA 1931 Mat.Appeal.No. 404 of 2007() ---------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER dt.20.02.07 IN O.P.No.326/2006 AND MC 323/2006 IN OP.326/2006 of FAMILY COURT, MALAPPURAM .................... APPELLANT/RESPONDENT: ------------------------------------ ALI, S/O. KOYAKUTTY, THOTTUKANNI HOUSE, MUTHUR, TIRUR P.O., TIRUR TALUK, TRIKANDIYUR AMSOM, MUTHUR DESOM. BY ADV. SRI.T.K.SAIDALIKUTTY SRI.P.A.MOHAMMED ASHROF SRI.LAL K.JOSEPH SRI.A.A.ZIYAD RAHMAN RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONER: -------------------------- AMINA, D/O. MAYIN, AGED 40 YEARS, KORANTHODI HOUSE,KIZHAKKEPPATTUPADI ATHAVANAD AMSOM, P.O. ATHAVANAD. ADV. SRI.A.KRISHNAN THIS MATRIMONIAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ. ------------------------------------ C.M.Appl.No.1494 of 2007 in Mat.Appeal No.404 of 2007 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 19th day of November, 2009 ORDER/JUDGMENT BASANT, J. This application is to condone the delay of 16 days in filing a matrimonial appeal. The respondent has entered appearance. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner/appellant. We take a lenient view and condone the delay. 2. Petition allowed. Delay condoned. Mat.Appeal No.404 of 2007 3. This appeal now comes up for admission hearing after condonation of delay. The appeal is directed against an order directing the appellant/husband to pay past maintenance @ Rs.3,000/- per mensem for a period of 30 months, totaling Rs.90,000/-. The impugned order was passed as per a common order along with a claim under Section 125 Cr.P.C. In the claim under Section 125 Cr.P.C, future maintenance has been awarded @ Rs.3,000/- per mensem. It is conceded that the said order has not been challenged and the same has now become final. Mat.Appeal No.404 of 2007 2 4. The appellant claims to be aggrieved by the impugned order. What is the grievance? The marriage between the parties is admitted. The appellant took up a contention that he had divorced the wife subsequently. That plea of divorce has not been accepted and it is accordingly that the order under Section 125 Cr.P.C has been passed and the said order has become final. For the 30 months in question, maintenance has been awarded @ Rs.3,000/- per mensem. The appellant is admittedly employed abroad. The wife resides in India. There are no issues in the wedlock. His liability to pay maintenance to the wife is not disputed. The short contention raised is that he has discharged the liability. How has he discharged the liability? Oral evidence is tendered about the discharge of liability, it is contended. It is pleaded that the amount has been paid by Demand Draft. Not a scintilla of evidence is produced before the court below to prove such valid discharge. Except the evidence of a power of attorney holder as RW1, there is absolutely no other evidence adduced. We do not, in these circumstances, find any merit in the challenge raised. The quantum of monthly maintenance awarded @ Rs.3,000/- per mensem is found to be reasonable. In Mat.Appeal No.404 of 2007 3 addition to all these, we must note that the direction for future maintenance has also not been challenged. We find no merit in the appeal. 5. This appeal is, in these circumstances, dismissed in limine. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) (M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE) rtr/-