IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI TUESDAY, THE 17TH AUGUST 2010 / 26TH SRAVANA 1932 Mat.Appeal.No. 465 of 2010() ---------------------------- OP.213/2009 of FAMILY COURT,KOZHIKODE .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- MUJEEB RAHMAN B.K, AGED 33 YEARS S/O.BADARUDHEEN, BARANKODE HOUSE ADHOOR PO, POZHUTHANA, WAYANAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SMT.CELINE JOSEPH RESPONDENT(S): --------------- SHAHIDA R.V, AGED 30 YEARS D/O.ABOOBACKER, GOSHALIKUNNU HOUE, VELLIPARAMB PO KOZHIKODE-8 ADV. SMT.P.SHYNI THIS MATRIMONIAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17/08/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ. * * * * * * * * * * * * * C.M.Application No.1380 of 2010 & Mat.Appeal No.465 of 2010 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 17th day of August 2010 O R D E R & J U D G M E N T Basant,J This petition is for condonation of the delay of 152 days in filing a Mat.Appeal. The appeal, in turn, is directed against a decree for divorce granted under the Dissolution of Muslim Marriage Act in favour of the wife, the respondent herein. 2. The application for condonation of delay is opposed. Both the appellant and the respondent have re-married by now, it is submitted. In these circumstances, there is absolutely no merit or grace in the prayer for condonation of delay, submits the learned counsel for the respondent. 3. The fact that the appellant and the respondent have re-married is not disputed. The delay is long and inordinate - 152 days. The reasons advanced to condone the delay are far from satisfactory. The appellant could not raise the requisite amount for filing the appeal, it is urged. We are satisfied, in the circumstances of the case, that there is no sufficient reason to C.M.Appln.No.1380/2010 & Mat.Appeal No.465/2010 2 condone the delay of 152 days. In coming to this conclusion, we take note of the undisputed circumstance that both the spouses have got re-married after the impugned order. 4. This application for condonation of delay is, in these circumstances, 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.Appln.No.1380/2010 & Mat.Appeal No.465/2010 3 C.M.Appln.No.1380/2010 & Mat.Appeal No.465/2010 4 R.BASANT & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ. .No. of 200 ORDER/JUDGMENT 19/07/2010