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 7TH OCTOBER 2009 / 15TH ASWINA 1931 Mat.Appeal.No. 749 of 2009() ---------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER IN & MC.532/2007 IN OP.344/2007 of FAMILY COURT, MALAPPURAM .................... PETITIONER(S): APPELLANT/RESPONDENT ----------------------------------- MUHAMMED ASHRAF, S/O. ABBUBBACKER, USSAN IBRAHIM VEETTIL HOUSE, VETTAM, NARAYANPADI, VETTAM AMSOM DESOM, P.O.VETTAM, REP.BY P/A HOLDER ABOOBAKAR,AGED 67,S/O.BEERAN,USSAN IBRAHIM VEETTIL (H), VETTAM, NARAYANPADI, VETTAM AMSOM DESOM, P.O.VETTAM, TIRUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DIST. BY ADV. SRI.C.V.MANUVILSAN SRI.P.K.KHALEEMUDHEEN RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONERS -------------------------- 1. RAMANALI NASSEEMA, AGED 24 YEARS, D/O. ABDURAHIMAN, THALAKKAD AMSOM, PARASSERI DESOM, TIRUR TALUK. 2. RAYEES, AGED 6 YEARS(MINOR), D/O. MUHAMMED ASHRAF, 3. RASHAD, 4 1/2 YEARS, (MINOR), MUHAMMED ASHRAF, (MINOR RESPONDENTS ARE REPRESENTED BY GUARDIAN MOTHER 1ST RESPONDENT). THIS MATRIMONIAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ. * * * * * * * * * * * * * C.M.A.No.2734 of 2009 in Mat.Appeal No.749 of 2009 & Mat.Appeal No.749 of 2009 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 7th day of October 2009 O R D E R & J U D G M E N T Basant,J The appellant has preferred this appeal aggrieved by the order passed by the Family Court directing payment of past maintenance for his wife and two minor children aged six years and 4 ½ years. Direction has been issued to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs.2,000/-, Rs.750/- and Rs.600/- per mensum respectively to the wife and two minor children. The O.P was disposed of along with a claim for maintenance preferred under Section 125 Cr.P.C. That direction for payment under Section 125 Cr.P.C was challenged and the said challenge has already been turned down as belated. The petitioner has now come to this court with this application to condone the delay of 480 days in preferring the Mat.Appeal. 2. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant/husband. No valid and sufficient reasons have been urged to justify the prayer for condonation of the long delay of C.M.A.No.2734/09 & Mat.Appeal No.749/09 2 480 days. Prayer for condonation is liable to be rejected as no justifiable reasons are shown. 3. Be that as it may, we requested the learned counsel to advance arguments on merits also. Marriage is admitted. Paternity of the two children is also admitted. That the appellant has married again is also conceded. The appellant is admittedly employed abroad. The husband has not taken the witness stand to raise the allegation that the wife is residing separately without sufficient reason. His power of attorney holder, who was examined as RW1, did not adduce any relevant evidence on this aspect. It is very evident that the appellant/husband is residing abroad. In these circumstances, the liability for payment of maintenance to the wife and children in India cannot obviously be disputed. 4. Coming to the quantum of maintenance awarded also, it is seen that the amount awarded is Rs.2,000/- Rs.750/- and Rs.600/- per mensum respectively to the wife and children. In the facts and circumstances of this case, we are not persuaded to agree that the quantum fixed is, in any way, incorrect, improper or excessive as to warrant interference exercising the appellate C.M.A.No.2734/09 & Mat.Appeal No.749/09 3 jurisdiction under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act. At the instance of the appellant herein, the same does not certainly warrant interference. 5. A grievance is raised that the Family Court erred in disposing of the original petition in its capacity as the District Court and the maintenance claim under Section 125 Cr.P.C in its capacity as a court exercising powers under Section 125 Cr.P.C together. Even assuming that the said procedure is incorrect, we are not satisfied that such allegedly incorrect procedure followed is a sufficient reason to interfere with the impugned direction. On merits also, the challenge is found to be without any substance. 6. In the result, the petition for condonation of delay is dismissed. Consequently, the Mat.Appeal shall stand rejected as barred by limitation. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) (M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE) jsr // True Copy// PA to Judge C.M.A.No.2734/09 & Mat.Appeal No.749/09 4 C.M.A.No.2734/09 & Mat.Appeal No.749/09 5 C.M.A.No.2734/09 & Mat.Appeal No.749/09 6 R.BASANT & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ. .No. of 200 ORDER/JUDGMENT 29/07/2009