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 16TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 25TH KARTHIKA 1931 Mat.Appeal.No. 98 of 2006 --------------------------- OP.440/2004 of FAMILY COURT, MANJERI .................... APPELLANT/RESPONDENT: ------------------------------------ KUNHAVARANKUTTY, AGED 48 YEARS, S/O. AMINA (LATE), THAYYAMBATTIL HOUSE, KALPAKANCHERRY P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.K.SHIBILI NAHA RESPONDENT : PETITIONER: -------------------------- C.P. ZAINABA, AGED 37 YEARS, D/O ALAVIKUTTY (LATE), CHEKKANAPARAMBIL VEEDU, KANNAPPAN THYPARAMB, KARAD, TANUR P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. ADV. SRI.C.M.KAMMAPPU FOR R1 THIS MATRIMONIAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ. ------------------------------------ C.M.Appl.No.800 of 2006 & Mat.Appeal No.98 of 2006 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 16th day of November, 2009 ORDER/JUDGMENT BASANT, J. This application is to condone the long delay of 299 days in filing an appeal. The appeal in turn is directed against an order granting divorce under the Dissolution of Muslim Marriage Act on the application filed by the wife on the ground of cruelty and desertion. The application was filed way back in 2004 and the impugned order was passed on 06.04.05. 2. The delay is enormous and gross. The only reason urged to explain the delay is that the appellant was advised rest for 8 months because of his illness - Diabetes and pulmonary tuberculosis. In any view of the matter, we are not satisfied that the delay is satisfactorily explained or that the same deserves to be condoned. 3. In our anxiety to ensure that the rejection of the prayer for condonation of delay does not result in failure or miscarriage of justice, we requested the learned counsel for the petitioner/appellant to explain the facts. We have been taken C.M.Appl.No.800 of 2006 & Mat.Appeal No.98 of 2006 2 through the relevant contentions. The claimant/wife and the appellant/husband had tendered evidence on the point whether there was cruelty and desertion. The court below had chosen to place reliance on the oral evidence of PW1 which was supported by Exts.A1 to A3 also. We are not satisfied that the rejection of the prayer for condonation of delay results in failure or miscarriage of justice. 4. In the circumstances of the case, we are satisfied that the delay does not deserve to be condoned. We are further satisfied that the dismissal of the prayer for condonation of delay does not result in any miscarriage of justice. 5. The application for condonation of delay is, in these circumstances, dismissed. Consequently the Matrimonial Appeal shall stand rejected as barred by limitation. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) (M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE) rtr/-