IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN THURSDAY, THE 25TH AUGUST 2011 / 3RD BHADRA 1933 Mat.Appeal.No. 640 of 2011() ---------------------------- OP.670/2008 of FAMILY COURT, KANNUR .................... APPELLANT/RESPONDENT ----------------------------------- GOVINDANKUTTY.C., AGED 61 YEARS, S/O.KRISHNAN, CHENNAN HOUSE, PERINTHATTA, ARAVANCHAL P.O., KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.M.SASINDRAN SRI.JOHNY THOMAS RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONER ------------------------------------------ SRUTHI C.G., AGED 19 YEARS, D/O.GOVINDAN KUTTY, VAZHAKKODAN HOUSE, VAYAKKARA, CHERUPUZHA P.O., KANNUR DISTRICT - 670 511. THIS MATRIMONIAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25/08/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Mat.A.No.640/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: ANNEXURE A1 - TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO.2911/2008 EFFECTED ON 22.11.2008. TRUE COPY P.S.TO JUDGE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. -------------------------------------------------- C.M.Appln.No.2035 of 2011 & Mat.Appeal No.640 of 2011 -------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 25th August, 2011 JUDGMENT Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, J This Mat.Appeal with an application seeking condonation of delay of 34 days is filed against an order issued by the Family Court exercising the power under the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956. 2. The delay is sought to be explained saying that the appellant was bedridden with fever and acute back ache for about three weeks and he could not therefore engage counsel to file the appeal. We may not criticise that ground at this stage as totally insufficient for consideration. However, we thought it fit to look into the merits of the case as well. 3. The respondent is the illegitimate daughter of the appellant. She had an order from the Magistrate's Court under Section 125 Cr.P.C. in her favour against the appellant. That had become final. Even in the proceedings Mat.A.No.640 of 2011 2 from which this appeal arise, the paternity of the respondent before us is not in dispute. The appellant/the father of the respondent appears to be aggrieved by the decree insofar as the quantum is concerned. 4. The respondent sued while she was around nineteen years of age. She claimed past maintenance and also for marriage expenses. She sued for past maintenance from 1.4.2007 to 6.3.2010 at the rate of `4,000/- (Rupees Four Thousand only) per month. She claimed marriage expenses of `Four lakhs. 5. The Family Court has granted a decree of past maintenance at the rate of `1500/- (Rupees One Thousand Five Hundred only) per month for a period of 35 (Thirty five) months and marriage expenses of `2,50,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Fifty Thousand only). A resultant aggregate amount of `3,02,500/- (Rupees Three Lakhs Two Thousand Five Hundred only) has been ordered to be recovered from the appellant and his assets. 6. The plea of the appellant before the Court below was that the allegations about his assets are wrong and that he had assigned his assets in favour of his sons even prior to the institution of the proceedings before the Court below by the illegitimate daughter. He says that he works as an Mat.A.No.640 of 2011 3 Accountant in a Travel agency at Payyannur. He did not produce any evidence before the Court below regarding his income in that regard. With the materials before the Court below through his own evidence as RW1, the appellant has got a decree against him, which according to us, is one that is just and proper and does not merit interference in an appeal under Section 19 of the Family Court's Act, 1984. Having so found, we do not find that any useful purpose would be served by entertaining the application for condonation of delay. 7. In the result, i) The application for condonation of delay is dismissed. ii) As a consequence, the appeal is dismissed/ rejected. sd/- THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN JUDGE sd/- K.SURENDRA MOHAN JUDGE true copy P.S.TO JUDGE css/