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 15TH DECEMBER 2009 / 24TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 RP.No. 1183 of 2009() --------------------- (AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN MAT.A.NO.284/09) REVIEW PETITIONER: APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS -------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. THOOMBATH HARIS, AGED 30 YEARS, S/O.MOIDEENKUTTY, MOOZHIKKAL HOUSE, PARAPPUR AMSOM, DESOM, P.O.PARAPPUR, KOTTAKKAL. 2. THOOMBATH MOIDEENKUTTY, AGED 58 YEARS, MOOZHIKKAL HOUSE, PARAPPUR AMSOM, DESOM, P.O.PARAPPUR, KOTTAKKAL. 3. SAFIYA, AGED 48 YEARS, W/O.THOOMBATH MOIDEENKUTTY, MOOZHIKKAL HOUSE, PARAPPUR AMSOM, DESOM, P.O.PARAPPUR, KOTTAKKAL. BY ADV. SRI.C.KHALID RESPONDENT: --------------- KADEEJA SHERBIN, AGED 23 YEARS, W/O.K.A.KUNHIM0N, KALARIPPARAMBIL HOUSE, VANIYAKKADAVU, POST MUNNAM, NORTH PARAVOOR, ERNAKULAM. THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15/12/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ. -------------------------------------------------- C.M.Application No.3580 OF 2009 & R.P.No.1183 OF 2009 in Mat.Appeal No.284 OF 2009 ----------------------------------------------------- DATED THIS THE 15th DAY OF DECEMBER, 2009 O R D E R Basant, J. This petition is to condone the delay of 56 days in filing an application for review. Review is sought of the judgment passed in Mat.Appeal No.284/2009. All the contentions that were raised at the time of arguments have been dealt with in the appellate judgment. The learned counsel for the review petitioner contends that there was omission to consider three issues. They are: (i) The marriage was not consummated. The question of liability to pay maintenance to the wife in an unconsummated marriage has not been considered by this Court. (ii) The denial of an opportunity to adduce evidence has not been considered as a ground of challenge. (iii) The quantum of maintenance awarded is excessive. 2. We are not satisfied that the delay in filing the review petition deserves to be condoned. In our anxiety to ensure that the C.M.Application No.3580 OF 2009& R.P.No.1183/09 in Mat.A.No.284/009 -2- rejection of the prayer for condonation of delay does not result in miscarriage of justice, we have looked into the grounds of challenge raised. The dispute about the quantum of maintenance raised was considered and answered by this Court. The first dispute about marriage being not consummated has not been raised and even now nothing is shown before us to show that the wife in an unconsummated marriage does not have the right to claim maintenance till the date of her divorce. We are not in these circumstances satisfied that there is any worthwhile point raised to be considered in the review petition. There is also nothing shown to exist to fortify the contention that the husband was denied reasonable opportunity to adduce evidence. We are satisfied that the rejection of the prayer for condonation of delay does not result in any failure or miscarriage of justice. 3. This petition to condone the delay is hence dismissed. Consequently, the prayer for review shall stand rejected as barred by limitation. R.BASANT, JUDGE. M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE. dsn