IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN WEDNESDAY, THE 3RD MARCH 2010 / 12TH PHALGUNA 1931 Mat.Appeal.No. 149 of 2010() ---------------------------- OP.321/2007 of FAMILY COURT, PALAKKAD .................... APPELLANT/RESPONDENT: --------------- SURESH BABU, S/O.SUSEELA AMMA PULLARE KUNDOZHIYIL, MALA AMSOM KOTTOPADAM DESOM, OTTAPALAM TALUK (WORKING AS CLERK, MALAMPUZHA H.S.SCHOOL, MALAMPUZHA, PALAKKAD) BY ADV. SRI.P.K.MOHANAN(PALAKKAD) RESPONDENT/PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. E.C.SAILAJA, D/O.K.M.UNNIKRISHNAN NAIR, CHAITHRAM HOUSE, MALA AMSOM, KOTTOPADAM DESOM, OTTAPALAM TALUK. 2. SILPA, D/O.SAILAJA, DO. DO. THIS MATRIMONIAL APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & P.S.GOPINATHAN, JJ. ------------------------------------------- Mat.A.No.149 OF 2010 & C.M.Appln.No.452 OF 2010 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 3rd day of March, 2010 JUDGMENT Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, J. When the application to condone delay of 175 days has come up for consideration, we heard learned counsel for the appellant on the merits of the matter, also to consider whether notice is to be issued on the application seeking condonation of delay. The marriage is not disputed. The second petitioner before the court below is admittedly the child of the appellant. The only issue involved in this case is maintenance. The court below found that the first respondent herein works as an LIC agent and has ultimately fixed maintenance due to her at Rs.750/- per month and the school going child has been granted Rs.1,000/- per month as maintenance. The appellant works in a school. His Mat.A.149/10. 2 net salary is above Rs.6,000/-. We do not find any illegality or error of jurisdiction in the matter. We are also of the view that the maintenance fixed by the court below is well in consonance with all facts of the case and the evidence on record. We are also of the firm view that the reasons stated in support of the application to condone delay are insufficient to grant such relief. We, accordingly, do not find any ground to admit this appeal or to issue notice on the application to condone delay. There is nothing to show that there was any mediation as attempted to be stated in the affidavit. The C.M.Application and the appeal fail. They are accordingly dismissed. Sd/- THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, Judge. Sd/- P.S.GOPINATHAN, Judge. kkb.3/03.