IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN MONDAY, THE 29TH NOVEMBER 2010 / 8TH AGRAHAYANA 1932 Mat.Appeal.No. 154 of 2009(B) ---------------------------- APPELLANT : RESPONDENT ------------------------- ABDUL GAFOOR CHOLA, AGED 40 YEARS, S/O. MUHAMMED CHOLAS HOUSE, UPHILL, MALAPPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.C.KHALID RESPONDENT : PETITIONER ------------------------- SHAHANAS ABDUL GAFOOR CHOLA, AGED 29 YEARS, LAKSHMI NIVAS-II, FLAT NUMBER 1 (A) GORPPADI, PUNE. ADV. SRI.P.VENUGOPAL (1086/92) FOR R1 THIS MATRIMONIAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29/11/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. *********************** C.M.Appl.No.445 of 2009 & Mat.Appeal No.154 of 2009 ***************************** Dated this the 29th day of November, 2010 ORDER/JUDGMENT BASANT, J. This petition is to condone the delay of 39 days in filing a matrimonial appeal. The application is vehemently opposed. It is contended that there is no satisfactory reasons to condone the delay. It is further submitted that the appeal is totally bereft of any merit and the same is liable to be dismissed in limine. 2. The matter was discussed at the bar. We are happy to note that the parties have come to terms and it is agreed that this application for condonation of delay and the appeal can now be dismissed recording the agreement between them regarding visitorial right of the appellant/father in respect of the child. 3. We accordingly record that it is agreed between the parties that the appellant/father can go and visit the child at Pune, where the respondent/wife presently resides. The appellant/husband has to inform the respondent/wife sufficiently early of the time that he proposes to visit his child. If such intimation is given, the respondent shall permit the appellant to C.M.Appl.No.445 of 2009 & Mat.Appeal No.154 of 2009 2 have interactions wit the child at Pune at such venue as is agreed upon by the parties from time to time. 4. We record and accept the said settlement between the parties. We are not satisfied that the delay deserves to be condoned. 5. In the result, recording the above agreed upon stipulation between the father and mother of the child about the right of the appellant/father to visit and interact with the child, we dismiss this application for condonation of delay and reject the appeal preferred as barred by limitation. 6. Hand over a copy of this order/judgment to the learned counsel for the petitioner/appellant. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) (K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE) rtr/ C.M.Appl.No.445 of 2009 & Mat.Appeal No.154 of 2009 3 C.M.Appl.No.445 of 2009 & Mat.Appeal No.154 of 2009 4 R.BASANT & M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS, JJ. *********************** C.M.Appl.No.445 of 2009 & Mat.Appeal No.154 of 2009 ***************************** Dated this the 28th day of October, 2010 ORDER BASANT, J. The learned counsel for the appellant does not want to press these appeal and the application for condonation of delay. But the learned counsel for the petitioner/appellant submits that breathing time may be given for the petitioner/appellant to talk over the matter with the respondent and come to some sort of understanding regarding visitorial right of the child born in the wedlock. The learned counsel for the petitioner/appellant hence prays that the Matrimonial Appeal may not be dismissed as not pressed now, but may be posted to a later date, within which time, attempts can be made to settle the controversy regarding visitorial rights in respect of the child. 2. We accept the said request. Though the counsel for the respondent is not too enthusiastic about that proposal, but, all he same, we note that the respondent can herself avoid an C.M.Appl.No.445 of 2009 & Mat.Appeal No.154 of 2009 5 unnecessary round of further litigation if the parties come to some sort of understanding regarding the visitorial rights in respect of the child. We therefore permit the counsel to pursue efforts for a harmonious settlement of the surviving dispute regarding the visitorial right of the petitioner/appellant in respect of the child born in the wedlock. 3. Call on 12.11.2010. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) (M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS, JUDGE) rtr/