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. 145 of 2003() ---------------------------- OP.79/2002 of FAMILY COURT, MANJERI .................... PETITIONER(S): APPELLANT/RESPONDENT NO.1 IN O.P. ------------------------------------------------ BABITHA, D/O.MADAYI RADHAKRISHNAN, AGED 21, RAYIRAMANGALAM AMSOM, KATTILANGDI DESOM, TIRUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DIST. BY ADV. SRI.S.V.BALAKRISHNA IYER, SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.HARISH R. MENON SRI.K.JAYAKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONERS & RESPONDENTS 2 TO 6 IN O.P. ------------------------------------------------------- 1. SURESH BABU, S/O.MADAYI BHASKARAN, AGED 28, OZHUR AMSOM, MADAYI DESOM, TIRUR TALUK, OZHUR P.O. MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 2. RADHKRISHNAN, S/O.MADAYI VELAYUDHAN, AGED 50 RAYIRAMANGALAM AMSOM, KATTILANGADI DESOM, TIRUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 3. MALATHI, D/O.CHEMPAKAN GANAPATHY, AGED 46 RAYIRAMANGALAM AMSOM, KATTILANGADI DESOM, TIRUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 4. PARAMESWARAN, S/O.CHEMPAKAN GANAPATHY, AGED 38, RAYIRAMANGALAM AMSOM, KATTILANGADI DESOM, TIRUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 5. VISWANANTHAN, S/O.MADAYI GANAPATHY, AGED 52, RAYIRAMANGALAM AMSOM, KATTILANGADI DESOM, TIRUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 6. GANAPATHYKUTTY, S/O.CHADAYAN KANARAN, AGED 45, KARALADEESWARAPURAM AMSOM DESOM, TIRUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 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.1254 of 2003 & Mat.Appeal No.145 of 2003 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 6th day of November 2009 O R D E R & J U D G M E N T Basant,J There is no representation for the appellant. When the matter came up on 03/11/2009, the learned counsel for the appellant wanted time to ascertain whether the appeal has become infructuous. Today when the case is called, there is no representation. No steps have been taken also. The inference appears to be irresistible that the appellant/petitioner is not interested in prosecuting these proceedings. 2. The application for condonation of delay and the Mat.Appeal are in these circumstances dismissed for non- prosecution. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) (M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE) jsr // True Copy// PA to Judge W.P.Crl/Mat.Appeal No. 2 W.P.Crl/Mat.Appeal No. 3 W.P.Crl/Mat.Appeal No. 4 R.BASANT & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ. .No. of 200 ORDER/JUDGMENT 29/07/2009