IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HON OURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C. HARI RANI THURSDAY, THE 29TH OCTOBER 2009 / 7TH KARTHIKA 1931 Mat.Appeal.No. 45 of 2005 --------------------------- OP.317/1999 of FAMILY COURT,ERNAKULAM .................... PETITIONER: APPELLANT/RESPONDENT ----------------------------------- K.A.MOHAMMED BABU, S/O. ABUBACKER, AGED 32, RESIDING AT POOVATHINGAL HOUSE, KARINKALIKUNNU, CHEERAI P.O., SULTHANBATHERI. BY ADV. SRI.K.G.SARATHKUMAR RESPONDENTS: PETITIONERS -------------------------- 1. SHAMSHAD, W/O. MOHAMED BABU, AGED 30, HOUSE NO.2/285, KALVATHI, KOCHI. 2. SHABNA, AGED 9, MINOR, REPRESENTED BY MOTHER AND NATURAL GUARDIAN 1ST RESPONDENT SHAMSHED, W/O. MOHAMED BABU, AGED 30, HOUSE NO. 2/285, KALVATHI, KOCHI. 3. SHAHNAS AGE 6, MINOR, REPRESENTED BY MOTHER AND NATURAL GUARDIAN 1ST RESPONDENT SHAMSHED W/O. HAMAMED BABU, AGED 30, HOUSE NO.2/285, KALVATHI, KOCHI. ADV. SMT.H.SUBHALEKSHMI FOR R1 TO 3 SMT.T.P.SINDHUMOL FOR R1 TO 3 THIS MATRIMONIAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29/10/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT & M.C. HARI RANI,JJ ============================== MAT APPEAL NO. 45 OF 2005 ============================ DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2009 JUDGMENT Basant,J. This appeal is directed against an order obliging the appellant to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs.750/- per mensem each to the claimants, his wife and two minor children. Marriage is admitted. Paternity is admitted. Separate residence is not disputed. There is no contention raised which can justify any claim for absolution from liability. 2. Before the court below, no evidence was adduced by the appellant herein. Relying on the evidence of PWs.1 to 4 tendered before the court, the court below came to the conclusion that an amount of Rs.750/- per mensem each can safely be ordered as maintenance to the claimants. The appellant claims to be aggrieved by the impugned order. Called upon to explain the nature of challenge that the appellant wants to raise in this appeal, the learned counsel for the appellant submits that as a matter of fact an amount of Mat appeal 45/2005 -2- Rs.one lakh which the appellant had allegedly entrusted to the claimants was squandered by them. There is not an iota of evidence in support of this assertion. In these circumstance, we are satisfied that the liability cannot be assailed. 3. Coming to the question of quantum of maintenance, it is only an amount of Rs.750/- per mensem each to the wife aged 28 years and children aged 4 years and 7 years in 1999. In any view of the matter, it cannot be held that the quantum fixed is unreasonable and excessive. Considering the needs of the claimants and the means of the appellant, the amount awarded is not excessive. Even reckoning the appellant as just an able bodied person, the maintenance awarded appears to be eminently reasonable, fair and just. 4. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed in limine. R. BASANT, JUDGE M.C. HARI RANI,JUDGE ks. Mat appeal 45/2005 -3- This petition is to condone the delay of 53 days in filing an appeal. The appeal in turn challenges an order directing the appellant to pay maintenance to the claimants - admittedly his wife and minor children at the rate of Rs.750/- per mensem each. There is no representation for the respondent. We take a lenient view that the delay can be condoned. This petition is allowed and the delay is condoned. Mat appeal 45/2005 -4- This petition is to condone the delay of 53 days in filing an appeal. The appeal in turn challenges an order directing the appellant to pay maintenance to the claimants - admittedly his wife and minor children at the rate of Rs.750/- per mensem each. There is no representation for the respondent. We take a lenient view that the delay can be condoned. This petition is allowed and the delay is condoned. R. BASANT, JUDGE M.C. HARI RANI,JUDGE ks.