IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI FRIDAY, THE 6TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 15TH KARTHIKA 1931 Mat.Appeal.No. 21 of 2006() --------------------------- OP.111/2005 of FAMILY COURT, MANJERI .................... APPELLANT/RESPONDENT: --------------------------- CHEMMADAN ABDULSAMAD, S/O. ALIKUTTY, PADUPPUNGAL HOUSE, ERANAD TALUK, CHERUKAVU AMSOM, DESOM, PULIKKAL P.O. BY ADV. SRI.BABU S. NAIR RESPONDENT: PETITIONER: --------------------------- POTTEMBILAKKAL AMINA, D/O. MUHAMMED, POTTEMBILAKKAL HOUSE, ERANAD TALUK, MUTHUVALLUR AMSOM, THAVANUR DESOM, THAVANUR P.O. THIS MATRIMONIAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ. -------------------------------------------------- C.M.Application No. 209 OF 2006 & Mat.Appeal No.21 OF 2006 ----------------------------------------------------- DATED THIS THE 6th DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2009 O R D E R /J U D G M E N T Basant, J. This application is for condonation of delay of 60 days in filing a Matrimonial Appeal. The appeal in turn is directed against an order directing payment of maintenance at the rate of Rs.400/- per mensem to the claimant/wife, i.e. the respondent herein. Service is complete. But, there is no representation for the respondent. 2. We are not satisfied that there is sufficient reason to condone the delay. However, in our anxiety to ensure that the rejection of the prayer for condonation does not result in miscarriage of justice, we requested the learned counsel for the appellant to explain the nature of challenge against the impugned order. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the challenge is directed only against the quantum of maintenance awarded. The children in the marriage are with the appellant and he is looking after them, it is submitted. Mat.Appeal No.21/06 -2- 3. Marriage is admitted. Separate residence is admitted. Liability to pay maintenance is not disputed before us. The short challenge raised is against the quantum of maintenance awarded. 4. Maintenance has been awarded at the rate of Rs.400/- per mensem. Going by the needs and requirements of the claimant, the amount is hardly sufficient for her to keep her body and soul together. Even reckoning the appellant herein as just an able bodied person, the quantum of maintenance awarded cannot be found to be excessive or unreasonable. The respondent has a contention that the appellant is working as an Auto Consultant and is getting a salary exceeding Rs.3,000/- per month now. In any view of the matter, we are satisfied that the quantum of maintenance awarded cannot be held to be excessive or unreasonable as to warrant invocation of the appellate jurisdiction under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act to interfere with the impugned order. 5. We are satisfied that the rejection of the prayer for condonation of delay does not entail any failure or miscarriage of justice. This petition for condonation of delay is hence dismissed. Mat.Appeal No.21/06 -3- Consequently, the Mat.Appeal shall stand rejected as barred by limitation. R.BASANT, JUDGE. M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE. dsn