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 3RD NOVEMBER 2009 / 12TH KARTHIKA 1931 Mat.Appeal.No. 313 of 2005() ---------------------------- OP.382/2004 of FAMILY COURT, MANJERI .................... PETITIONER -------------- N.K.MOIDEEN HAJI, AGED 50 YEARS, S/O.ENTHEENKUTTY, NALUKANDATHIL HOUSE, VARAMBANALU, KALPAKANCHERRY P.O., VALAVANNUR AMSOM, DESOM, TIRUR TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.ESM.KABEER RESPONDENT: --------------- JAMEELA, AGED 30 YEARS, D/O.KUTTIYAMU HAJI, PUTHUKKODI HOUSE, P.O.PONMUNDAM, TIRUR TALUK, PONMUNDAM AMSOM DESOM. THIS MATRIMONIAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ. -------------------------------------------------- C.M.Application No.2309 OF 2005 & Mat.Appeal No.313 OF 2005 ----------------------------------------------------- DATED THIS THE 3rd DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2009 O R D E R /J U D G M E N T Basant, J. This petition is to condone the delay of 91 days in filing a Matrimonial Appeal. The appeal in turn is directed against an order directing payment of past and future maintenance. Maintenance passed in future has been directed to be paid at the rate of Rs.750/- per mensem from 8.9.2001 to 24.3.2004 and at the rate of Rs.1,000/- per mensem from 25.3.2004. Respondent has been served. There is no representation for the respondent. We are satisfied that a lenient view can be taken and the delay can be condoned. Petition allowed. Delay condoned. Mat.Appeal No.313/05 2. Now coming to the merits of the challenge raised in this appeal. The learned counsel for the appellant raises only one contention. That relates to an arithmetical error in calculating the past maintenance that was due. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that after directing payment of maintenance at Mat.A.No.313/05 -2- the rate of Rs.750/- per mensem from 8.9.2001 to 24.3.2004 , the court below on account of some unascertainable arithmetical error, quantified the amount as Rs.28,365/-. We find merit in the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant. Maintenance is ordered to be paid from 8.9.2001 to 24.3.2004 and that comes to two years, six months and 16 days, i.e., 30½ months. At the rate of Rs.750/- per mensem, the quantum works out only to Rs.22,875 (30.5 x 750). On and after 25.3.2004, maintenance was directed to be paid at the rate of Rs.1,000/- per mensem. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that this arithmetical error obliges the appellant now to pay an excess amount of Rs.5490 (Rs.28,365 - Rs.22,875 = Rs.5,490). The learned counsel only prays that this patent arithmetical error may be clarified and reversed. 3. We are satisfied that the said request can be accepted. It is clarified that past maintenance at the rate of Rs.750/- per mensem from 8.9.2001 to 24.3.2004 works out only to Rs.22,875/- and not Rs.28,365/-. The direction that maintenance from 25.3.2004 shall be payable at the rate of Mat.A.No.313/05 -3- Rs.1,000/- per mensem is of course upheld. 4. This appeal is in these circumstance allowed in part to the above extent. R.BASANT, JUDGE. M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE. dsn