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 22ND JUNE 2010 / 1ST ASHADHA 1932 Mat.Appeal.No. 427 of 2010() ---------------------------- OPG&W.204/1996 of FAMILY COURT,TRIVANDRUM .................... APPELLANT/ PETITIONER: --------------- ARULAPPAN, SON OF BHAKTHIRAJ, MUNDAPPALLIL MELEVEEDU, NETTAYAKONAM, KAZHAKUTTAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM BY ADV. SRI.K.P.SUJESH KUMAR RESPONDENT/COUNTER PETITIONER: --------------- SUDHA, D/O.LEELA BHAI, KARIPPUMUKAL PUTHEN VEEDU, KUTTIYANI, KANAKKODE, VATTAPPARA, NEDUMANGAD TALUK, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. THIS MATRIMONIAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ. * * * * * * * * * * * * * C.M.Application No.1253 of 2010 & Mat.Appeal No.427 of 2010 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 21st day of June 2010 O R D E R & J U D G M E N T Basant,J This application is to condone the delay of 1499 days in filing an appeal. The appeal, in turn, is directed against an order dismissing the prayer for granting custody of the minor male child of the petitioner and the respondent. The court below dismissed the petitioner's application for custody by the impugned order. 2. Called upon to explain the delay, the learned counsel for the appellant submits that the petitioner had moved the Family Court in 2008 for visitorial rights. That petition was not entertained by the court below at all. It is, in these circumstances, that the petitioner has realised the need to challenge the impugned order, submits the learned counsel for the appellant. 3. We find absolutely no merit in the prayer for condonation of the delay of 1499 days. We are not persuaded to issue notice to the respondent herein. The grievance of the C.M.Appl.No.1253 of 2010 & Mat.Appeal No.427 of 2010 : 2 : petitioner appears to be that his claim for visitorial rights now is not considered by the Family Court. A proper fresh application can be filed claiming visitorial rights and modification of the earlier order, in the light of the changed circumstances. Needless to say, such an application will have to be considered in accordance with law by the Family Court, if the same is otherwise in order. 4. With the above observations, this application 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 C.M.Appl.No.1253 of 2010 & Mat.Appeal No.427 of 2010 : 3 : C.M.Appl.No.1253 of 2010 & Mat.Appeal No.427 of 2010 : 4 : R.BASANT & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ. .No. of 200 ORDER/JUDGMENT 29/07/2009