IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI FRIDAY, THE 13TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 22ND KARTHIKA 1931 Mat.Appeal.No. 624 of 2008() ---------------------------- OP.721/2006 of FAMILY COURT, MALAPPURAM .................... APPELLANT/RESPONDENT: ---------------------------- MOHAMMEDALI T.K., 35 YEARS,S/O. KUTTIYALI,THONDIKODAN HOUSE, P.O.PARAMBILPEEDIKA, MALAPPURAM DIST,REPRESENTED BY HIS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER, NARAMCHULLI HOUSE PUTHUR DESOM, PARAMBILPEEDIKA P.O.,TIRURANGADI TALUK,MALAPPURAM TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.T.K.SAIDALIKUTTY SRI.LAL K.JOSEPH SRI.A.A.ZIYAD RAHMAN SMT.SHEENA SAMUEL RESPONDENT(S)/PETITIONERS: ---------------------------------- 1. SMT.ASMABI C.P.,29 YEARS,D/O.MAMMAD HAJI CHOLAPOTTAYIL, HOUSE, NEDIYIRIPPU P.O., KONDOTTY ,MALAPPURAM DIST. 2. HAYA, 4½ YEARS, MINOR, D/O. MOHAMMADALI. 3. HAMLATH,1½ YEARS, MINOR (MINOR RESPONDENTS ARE REPRESENTED BY GUARDIAN, MOTHER IST RESPONDENT) THIS MATRIMONIAL APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ. -------------------------------------------------- C.M.Application No. 1939 OF 2008 & Mat.Appeal No.624 OF 2008 ----------------------------------------------------- DATED THIS THE 13th DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2009 O R D E R /J U D G M E N T Basant, J. This application is to condone the delay of 15 days in filing a Matrimonial Appeal. The Matrimonial Appeal in turn is directed against an order granting maintenance to the wife and two minor children of the appellant herein. Respondent is served, but there is no appearance. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant. We are proceeding to dispose of the appeal straightaway. We are in these circumstances satisfied that a lenient view can be taken and the delay can be condoned. Petition allowed. Delay condoned. Mat.Appeal No.624/08 2. This appeal is directed against an order obliging the appellant to pay past maintenance at the rate of Mat.A.No.624/08 -2 Rs.3,000/- per mensem to his wife and Rs.1,200/- and 1,000/- per mensem to his two minor children. 3. Marriage is admitted. Paternity is not disputed. That the appellant has married again is again not disputed. The liability to pay maintenance is not in dispute. The only dispute is about the quantum of maintenance payable. Going by the requirements of the claimants, the amounts can by no stretch of imagination be held to be unreasonable or excessive as to justify appellate interference invoking the jurisdiction under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act. The appellant is admittedly employed abroad. Some indication about his own assessment of his financial ability can be gathered from the fact that the appellant, fully conscious of his liability to maintain his wife and children, has chosen to embrace the responsibilities of another subsequent marriage. The available indications clearly show that the quantum of maintenance awarded can by no stretch of imagination be held to be excessive even when viewed from Mat.A.No.624/08 -3 the angle of the appellant. We find no reason to interfere with the impugned order. The evidence available amply justify the quantum fixed by the court below and we are not persuaded to interfere with the quantum fixed. 4. In the result: (a) this appeal is dismissed. (b) the impugned order is upheld. R.BASANT, JUDGE. M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE. dsn