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 3RD NOVEMBER 2009 / 12TH KARTHIKA 1931 Mat.Appeal.No. 274 of 2005() ---------------------------- OP.270/2004 of FAMILY COURT, MALAPPURAM .................... APPELLANT/RESPONDENT: ------------------------------------ YAKKIPARAMBAN HASSANKUTTY, S/O. ABOOBACKER, AGED 29 YEARS, POOLAKKAL HOUSE, KINARADAPPAN, P.O. VETTILAPPARA, VIA. AREACODE. BY ADV. SRI.M.K.CHANDRA MOHANDAS RESPONDENTS : PETITIONERS: --------------------------- 1. CHEERANTHODI NUSAIBA, D/O. MUHAMMED, MOVIKKAL HOUSE, KUTHUPARAMBU, MAITHRA P.O., AREACODE, ERANAD TALUK, MALAPPURAM. 2. AYISA SHAHANA, 2 YEARS. 3. MUHAMMED SHABEER, 1 1/2 YEARS, (MINOR RESPONDENTS ARE REPRESENTED BY THE GUARDIAN MOTHER 1ST RESPONDENT). ADV. SRI.BABU S. NAIR FOR R1 TO 3 THIS MATRIMONIAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ. ------------------------------------ C.M.Appl.No.2061 of 2005 & Mat.Appeal No.274 of 2005 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 3rd day of November, 2009 ORDER/JUDGMENT BASANT, J. This petition is to condone the delay of 20 days in filing a matrimonial appeal. The appeal in turn challenges a decree for payment of past maintenance to the wife and child. Total amount payable under the decree is Rs.31,050/-. The respondent has entered appearance. We are satisfied, in these circumstances, that a lenient view can be taken and the delay can be condoned. 2. Petition allowed. Delay condoned. 3. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant on merits for admission. The impugned order directs payment of past maintenance @ Rs.600/- per mensem to the wife and Rs.450/- per mensem each to the two minor children. It is thus that the total amount of Rs.31,050/- is payable as past maintenance. 4. Marriage is admitted. Paternity is not disputed. Separate residence is conceded. Admittedly the appellant is an C.M.Appl.No.2061 of 2005 & Mat.Appeal No.274 of 2005 2 autorickshaw driver. There is a contention that the appellant has gone abroad in search of an employment and has taken up employment there. He, who was present before court during the initial stages, did not later on appear before court. He was represented thereafter by his power of attorney holder/mother. The power of attorney holder examined herself as RW1. The court below, in these circumstances, came to the conclusion that the claimants are entitled to past maintenance at the rates indicated above. 5. The appellant claims to be aggrieved by the impugned order. What is the grievance? The only grievance raised is that the amount of maintenance awarded is excessive. 6. We will completely ignore the fact that the appellant has now gone abroad and is alleged to have taken up employment there. Even admittedly, at the relevant time he was an autorickshaw driver. Even reckoning him only as an able bodied person, we are satisfied that the quantum of maintenance awarded is absolutely fair, reasonable, modest and just. The same does not at all warrant interference invoking the appellate C.M.Appl.No.2061 of 2005 & Mat.Appeal No.274 of 2005 3 jurisdiction under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act. 7. In the result, this Matrimonial Appeal is dismissed. The impugned order is upheld. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) (M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE) rtr/-