IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN THURSDAY, THE 4TH MARCH 2010 / 13TH PHALGUNA 1931 Mat.Appeal.No. 7 of 2007() -------------------------- OP.475/2003 of FAMILY COURT,KOZHIKODE .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER(S): --------------- T.RADHAKRISHNAN, AGED 53 YEARS, S/O.THARAYIL CHANDUKUTTY, THARAYIL HOUSE, FEROKE AMSOM AND DESOM, KOZHIKODE TALUK BY ADV. SRI.MANJERI SUNDERRAJ RESPONDENT(S): --------------- PUTHALATH LAKSHMI, AGED 48 YEARS, D/O.PUTHALATH KANARAN, PUTHALATH HOUSE, PALATH AMSOM AND DESOM, KOZHIKODE TALUK. ADV. SRI.V.N.RAMESAN NAMBISAN THIS MATRIMONIAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & P.S.GOPINATHAN, JJ. ------------------------------------------- C.M.Appln.41 OF 2007 & Mat. Appeal No.7 OF 2007 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 4th day of March, 2010 JUDGMENT Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, J. 1.The appellant has filed C.M.application seeking condonation of delay of 420 days in filing appeal against an order of the Family Court, refusing him custody of a mentally challenged son. The boy, elder among the two children of the petitioner and respondent, was at the time of the original application aged around 23 years. The only explanation attempted to be offered for the delay in filling the appeal is that the appellant was under the impression that his appeal is prepared and forwarded by his counsel through the family court to the High Court directly and later it turned out that his such impression was wrong. He, therefore, hastened to file this appeal. 2. The respondent has filed a counter affidavit even touching the merits of the matter. It is also submitted that the delay is Mat.A.7/07 2 actually of 450 days. We are not satisfied that the petitioner has shown sufficient reason to condone the delay. Having regard to the facts found by the Family Court and the allegations that the petitioner had levelled against the respondent, the necessity that he has now evinced is not inspiring. The Family Court found that the petitioner's appeal could have been to get over an order for payment of maintenance. Though we do not express anything on that aspect of the matter, it is a matter of record that the respondent mother was appointed as the guardian of the mentally challenged child by order in O.P.26/92. That order is final. We have also gone through the impugned order of the Family Court. We do not find any ground which may warrant interference with that decision. The C.M.application and the appeal are accordingly dismissed. Sd/- THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, Judge. Sd/- P.S.GOPINATHAN, Judge. kkb.4/03.