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 8TH OCTOBER 2009 / 16TH ASWINA 1931 Mat.Appeal.No. 736 of 2009() ---------------------------- OP.1225/2005 of FAMILY COURT, NEDUMANGAD .................... PETITIONER(S): APPELLANT/RESPONDENT ----------------------------------- MURALEEDHARAN,S/O.KRISHNAKURUPPU, AGED 46 YEARS,RESIDING AT DEVAKI BHAVAN, PANANTHARA DESOM,CHEMMARUTHY, CHEMMARUTHY VILLAGE,CHIRAYINKEEZHU TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.T.MADHU RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONER ------------------------- DEVAKI AMMA,D/O.LEKSHMI AMMA, AGED 73 YEARS,RESIDING AT VILAYIL VEEEDU, PANANTHARA DESOM,CHEMMARUTHY, CHEMMARUTHY VILLAGE,CHIRAYINKEEZHU TALUK. THIS MATRIMONIAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT & M.C. HARI RANI, JJ. ------------------------------------------------- C.M.Appl.No.2713 of 2009 & Mat. Appeal No.736 of 2009 ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 8th day of October, 2009 ORDER/JUDGMENT Basant,J. This application is to condone the delay of 32 days in filing an appeal. The Mat. Appeal, in turn, is directed against an order passed by the Family Court directing the appellant to pay an amount of Rs.750/- per mensem as maintenance to his mother - the respondent herein. 2. The petition for maintenance was filed originally by the respondent herein and her husband - the parents of the appellant herein. According to them, they were unable to maintain themselves and the appellant herein, who has sufficient means, was refusing and neglecting to pay maintenance to them. The second claimant i.e., the father of the appellant, expired during the pendency of the proceedings C.M.Appl.No.2713 of 2009 & Mat. Appeal No.736 of 2009 -: 2 :- and, in these circumstances, no amount was awarded for the maintenance of the 2nd claimant. The claimants contended that a property belonging to them had been settled in favour of the appellant. The appellant contended that he had paid money and obtained the same. Even that dispute is irrelevant except to show that the appellant has an item of property with a house therein belonging to him now. There is nothing to show that the appellant is unable to pursue his normal avocation or is not employed. Even according to him, he is a leader of the trade union in the cashew factory. 3. There is a delay of 32 days in filing an appeal. We are not satisfied that sufficient reasons have been shown to justify the prayer for condonation of delay. The claimant/mother is aged about 75 years now. It must anxiously be ensured that there is no unnecessary protraction of the proceedings. We are, in these circumstances, not satisfied that there is sufficient reason to condone the delay. 4. However, in our anxiety to ensure that the refusal to condone the delay does not result in miscarriage of justice, we requested the learned counsel for the petitioner/appellant to explain the challenge which he wants to raise against the C.M.Appl.No.2713 of 2009 & Mat. Appeal No.736 of 2009 -: 3 :- impugned order. 5. The claimant/mother is aged about 75 years now. She was formerly employed as a worker in the cashew factory. She does not have any employment now. There is nothing to show that she has any property left with her. The evidence clearly indicates that the appellant had received an item of property from his parents. He initially contended that the property was given to him by his parents who settled their properties in favour of their children including him. Later, of course, he raised a contention that he had paid amounts to his parents to take assignment of that property. 6. It is very clear that the claimant/mother is unable to maintain herself. Though there is no specific evidence about the income of the appellant, we have satisfactory indications to show that he was employed abroad for some period of time. He is now having financial resources. Notwithstanding the inability of the court below to come to a specific finding about the quantum of income of the appellant, we are satisfied that the direction to pay an amount of Rs.750/- per mensem to the mother does not in any way suffer from any defect or vice justifying or warranting invocation of the correctional jurisdiction in appeal under C.M.Appl.No.2713 of 2009 & Mat. Appeal No.736 of 2009 -: 4 :- Sec.19. The amount ordered to be paid as maintenance is absolutely fair, reasonable and just considering the needs of the claimant and the evidence available about the means of the appellant. Challenge by the appellant against the meager amount awarded is not sustainable. We are satisfied that the appeal is without any merit or substance. 7. In the result, the application for condonation of delay is dismissed. Consequently, the Mat. Appeal shall stand rejected as barred by limitation. Sd/- R. BASANT (Judge) Sd/- M.C. HARI RANI (Judge) Nan/ //True Copy// P.S. to Judge C.M.Appl.No.2713 of 2009 & Mat. Appeal No.736 of 2009 -: 5 :-