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 1ST JUNE 2009 / 11TH JYAISHTA 1931 Mat.Appeal.No. 113 of 2004() ---------------------------- OP.220/2003 of FAMILY COURT, MALAPPURAM .................... APPELLANT/RESPONDENT ---------------------------- THAYYIL RAJAN, S/O. GOPALAN, AGED 42 YEARS, VALAMBUR AMSOM, TIRURKAD DESOM, PERINTHALMANNA TALUK, NOW RESIDING AT P.B.NO.3, JUBBA-HALL, K.S.A., REP.BY THE POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER, RATNAKUMAR, AGED 44 YEARS, NALUKANDAN PARAMBA HOUSE, THIRURKAD P.O.,PERINTHALMANNA TALUK BY ADV. SRI.P.JAYABAL MENON SRI.P.FAZIL SRI.P.T.ARUNKUMAR RESPONDENT: PETITIONER ------------------------------ AVELVEETTIL VALSALA, AGED 36 YEARS, S/O. LATE NANU, NALUKANDAMPARAMBIL HOUSE, ORADAMPALAM, TIRURKAD P.O., PERINTHALMANNA TALUK. ADV. SRI.BABU S. NAIR THIS MATRIMONIAL APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ. -------------------------------------------------- C.M.application No.1551 OF 2004 & Mat.Appeal No.113 of 2004 ----------------------------------------------------- DATED THIS THE 1st DAY OF JUNE, 2009 O R D E R / J U D G M E N T Basant, J. This petition is to condone the delay of 34 days in filing the appeal. The appeal, in turn, is directed against an order granting the claimant/wife/respondent herein past maintenance at the rate of Rs.1,000/- per mensem(Rs.8,000/- in all) and future maintenance at the rate of Rs.1,250/- per mensem. The claim for return of gold ornaments and other amounts was dismissed by the impugned order. When the matter came up for hearing, it was agreed that the petition for condonation of delay and the appeal itself can be taken up for hearing together today. Today, when the matter came up for hearing, the learned counsel for the appellant submits that there is no instructions from the appellant. We have considered the totality of circumstances. We find absolutely no justification in the application for condonation of delay. The inference appears to be irresistible that the appellant C.M.appln. No.1551/04 & Mat.A No.113/04 -2- did not want to challenge the order and later on thought it fit and necessary to challenge the order just for the sake of purchasing time for making payment. This application to condone the delay is hence dismissed. Consequently, the appeal shall also stand rejected as barred by limitation. R.BASANT, JUDGE. M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE. dsn