IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI MONDAY, THE 2ND NOVEMBER 2009 / 11TH KARTHIKA 1931 Mat.Appeal.No. 176 of 2005() ---------------------------- OP.1172/2003 of FAMILY COURT, THIRUVALLA .................... PETITIONER(S): APPELLANT/RESPONDENT ----------------------------------- MURALI, S/O.RAMAN, AGED 53 YEARS, UDAYANTE VADAKKETHIL VEEDU, THEPPUPARA P.O., EZHAMKULAM VILLAGE, ADOOR TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.D.SAJEEV RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS: --------------- 1. JANAKI, AGED 47 YEARS, W/O.MURALI, UDAYANTE VADAKKETHIL VEEDU, EZHAMKULAM VILLAGE, EZHAMKULAM MURI, ADOOR TALUK. 2. LATHA, AGED 27 YEARS, D/O.JANAKI, DO. DO. 3. SREELATHA, AGED 23 YEARS, D/O.JANAKI, DO. DO. ADV. SRI.N.VIMALAN FOR R1 TO 3 THIS MATRIMONIAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ. * * * * * * * * * * * * * C.M.Application No.1341 of 2005 & Mat.Appeal No.176 of 2005 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 2nd day of November 2009 O R D E R & J U D G M E N T Basant,J This C.M.Application is to condone the delay of 241 days in filing a Mat.Appeal. The appeal in turn is directed against an order directing payment of maintenance at the rate of Rs.800/- per mensum each to the claimants who are the wife and unmarried daughters of the appellant herein. 2. Marriage is admitted. Paternity is admitted. That claimants 2 and 3 are unmarried is admitted. There is no contention that they have any income or means to support themselves. 3. Before the court below, the claimants examined Pws 1 to 3 and proved Exts.A1 as wells as Exts.X1 and X2. The appellant did not choose to cross-examine Pws 1 to 3 nor did he choose to adduce any evidence. The learned Judge of the Family Court, on the basis of the materials available before him and in the light of the pleadings, came to the conclusion that the C.M.A.No.1341/05 & Mat.Appeal No.176/05 2 appellant is liable to pay maintenance - past and future, at the rate of Rs.800/- per mensum. Accordingly, the learned Judge proceeded to pass the impugned order. 4. The appellant claims to be aggrieved by the impugned order. Called upon to explain the reasons for condonation of the long delay of 241 days, the learned counsel submits that the delay occurred on account of reasons beyond the control of the appellant. High financial stringency is the ground alleged. We are satisfied that the reasons advanced to support the prayer for condonation of delay are not sufficient and is not acceptable. The prayer for condonation of delay does not deserve to be considered favourably. 5. In our anxiety is to ensure that the dismissal of the application for condonation of delay does not result in any miscarriage of justice, we requested the learned counsel for the appellant to explain the challenge on merits. The learned counsel admits that the appellant is an employee of the Plantation Corporation. But, according to him, he works for a daily income of Rs.75/-. Annexure II document is produced in support of the contention that the appellant gets only a meager income. No explanation is offered as to why the document has C.M.A.No.1341/05 & Mat.Appeal No.176/05 3 not been produced before the court below. Even reckoning him as just an able bodied person, we are satisfied that the quantum of maintenance awarded at the rate of Rs.800/- per mensum each to the claimants is eminently reasonable and does not warrant any interference. 6. We are, in these circumstances, of the view that the petition to condone the delay only deserves to be dismissed. We are further convinced that the dismissal of the application for condonation of delay does not result in any miscarriage of justice also. 7. In the result, C.M.Application is dismissed and consequently, the appeal shall stand rejected as barred by limitation. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) (M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE) jsr // True Copy// PA to Judge C.M.A.No.1341/05 & Mat.Appeal No.176/05 4 C.M.A.No.1341/05 & Mat.Appeal No.176/05 5 R.BASANT & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ. .No. of 200 ORDER/JUDGMENT 29/07/2009