IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI WEDNESDAY, THE 11TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 20TH KARTHIKA 1931 Mat.Appeal.No. 393 of 2006() ---------------------------- OPG&W.327/2005 of FAMILY COURT, MALAPPURAM .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER. ------------------------- KOODIYATH HUMAYUN KABEER, AGED 39 YEARS, S/O.MOIDEEN, KANMANAM AMSOM, POTHANNUR DESOM, P.O.KANMANAM, TIRUR TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.ESM.KABEER RESPONDENT: RESPONDENT. -------------------------------- PARAPPIL RASEENA, AGED 30 YEARS, D/O.HAMZA, ANANTHAVOOR AMSOM DESOM, P.O.ANANTHAVOOR, TIRUR TALUK. ADV. SRI.K.P.SUDHEER THIS MATRIMONIAL APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ. -------------------------------------------------- C.M.Application No. 2324 OF 2006 & Mat.Appeal No.393 OF 2006 ----------------------------------------------------- DATED THIS THE 11th 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 243 days in filing an appeal. The appeal in turn is directed against the dismissal of an application for custody of the children by the appellant/father. The father is employed abroad. The children have been permitted to continue with the respondent/wife subject to the right of the appellant to take the children with him during holidays, while he is on leave in the country. 2. There is a delay of 243 days. It is submitted that the delay occurred on account of reasons beyond the control of the appellant. The appellant was employed abroad and the best order possible in these circumstances has been given to the appellant, permitting him to take the children with him during the holidays while he is available in India. The learned counsel contends that the appellant wants to raise a contention that the respondent is an adulteress and it will be deleterious to leave the Mat.A.No.393/06 -2- children in the custody of the respondent/wife. When he is abroad, who will look after the children? The counsel was requested to explain. The learned counsel submits that the parents of the appellant shall look after them. That is a counter productive argument. If that is the reason, it is not explained why the appeal has not been preferred earlier. 3. We are satisfied that no sufficient reasons have been shown to exist to justify the prayer for condonation of the long, inordinate and gross delay of 243 days. This petition for condonation of delay is accordingly dismissed. Consequently, the Mat.Appeal shall stand rejected as barred by limitation. R.BASANT, JUDGE. M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE. dsn