IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI THURSDAY, THE 5TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 14TH KARTHIKA 1931 Mat.Appeal.No. 253 of 2005() ---------------------------- OP.488/2004 of FAMILY COURT, MANJERI .................... PETITIONER(S): APPELLANT/RESPONDENT ----------------------------------- HAMZA T.P., 57 YEARS, THEKKEPPURAM HOUSE, MUNDUPARAMBU P.O., MANJERI ROAD, MALAPPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.BABU S. NAIR RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONERS -------------------------- 1. SUHRABI A., 38 YEARS, PERUVANKUZHIYIL HOUSE, MALAPPURAM P.O., MOONNAMPADI, MANJERI ROAD, MALAPPURAM. 2. MUHAMMED AJIR, 17 YEARS, MINOR. 3. MUHAMMED AJMALBABU, 15 YEARS, MINOR. (MINOR PETRITIONERS ARE REPRESENTED BY THE GUARDIAN MOTHER 1ST PETITIONER) 4. RASEENA, D/O.HAMZA T.P., 19 YEARS, PERUVANKUZHIYIL HOUSE, MOONNAMPADI, MANJERI ROAD, MALAPPURAM P.O. THIS MATRIMONIAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ. * * * * * * * * * * * * * C.M.Application No.1921 of 2005 & Mat.Appeal No.253 of 2005 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 5th day of November 2009 O R D E R & J U D G M E N T Basant,J Service is not complete. Steps have not been taken in the application for condonation of delay. We are, in these circumstances, satisfied that the petition to condone the delay can be dismissed. 2. In our anxiety to ensure that the dismissal of the application for condonation of delay for not taking steps does not result in miscarriage of justice, we called upon the learned counsel for the appellant to explain the nature of the challenge which the petitioner wants to mount against the impugned order. 3. The impugned order directs payment of maintenance at the rate of Rs.500/- per mensum to the three children of the appellant. Paternity is admitted. Separate residence is admitted. That the sons/claimants are minors and the daughter/claimant is unmarried is also admitted. The only dispute is about the quantum. The amount awarded is only Mat.Appeal No.253/05 2 Rs.500/- per mensum each for the three children. Even reckoning the appellant as just an able bodied person, we are satisfied that the quantum of maintenance awarded does not warrant interference. Thus, the challenge on merits found to be baseless. 4. In the result, the petition for condonation of delay and the Mat.Appeal are dismissed. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) (M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE) jsr // True Copy// PA to Judge Mat.Appeal No.253/05 3 Mat.Appeal No.253/05 4 R.BASANT & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ. .No. of 200 ORDER/JUDGMENT 29/07/2009