IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 14TH JULY 2011 / 23RD ASHADHA 1933 Mat.Appeal.No. 543 of 2011() ----------------------------------------- OP(HMA).104/1996 OF FAMILY COURT, KOLLAM .................... APPELLANT/RESPONDENT -------------------------------------- G. SUDARSANA KUMAR, SOBANA MANDIRAM, POOVATTOOR KIZHAKKE MURI, KALAYAPURAM VILLAGE, KOTTARAKKARA TALUK, KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.JOHNSON GOMEZ, SRI.S.BIJU (KIZHAKKANELA). RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS --------------------------------------------- 1. SARASAMMA SUSHAMMA, MUTTUKONATHU CHARUVILA PUTHEN VEEDU, CHEPRA MURI, ODANAVATTOM VILLAGE, KOTTARAKKARA TALUK, KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN-691 512. 2. MANOHARAN, SON OF JANARDHANAN, MANOHARA VILASOM (KANJIRICKAL), CHEPRA MURI, ODANAVATTOM VILLAGE, KOTTARAKKARA TALUK, KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN-691 512. BY THIS MATRIMONIAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14/07/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan & N.K.Balakrishnan, JJ. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Mat.Appeal 543 of 2011 & C.M.Appl.1501 of 2011 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 14th day of July, 2011. Judgment Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, J. 1.This matrimonial appeal is filed with an application seeking condonation of delay of 3792 days, i.e., more than ten years. 2.Husband is the appellant. In 1996, he sued the wife for divorce on ground of desertion and adultery with the second respondent. Parties tendered evidence. The case was dismissed in 2000. 3.We find that the couple have a child. It is stated on query that the said child is now about 22 years old. MA543/11 -: 2 :- 4.The appellant appears to be an Army deserter. He has orders against him in criminal jurisdiction relating to maintenance case. He has a suit decreed against him at the instance of the wife. All these events happened during the last ten years. Now he contends that the appeal in hand was delayed on account of reasons attributable to different other proceedings. We do not find that the affidavit inspires confidence to hold that there is sufficient cause to condone the delay in filing this appeal. His further statement that he is in a deep state of mental depression leading to the psychosis is not substantiated by any medical records or evidence. Though he says that he was under treatment of a consultant neuro- psychiatrist, we find that he had been participating or suffering orders in proceedings under different jurisdictions. On the whole, we do not find that after a span of 10 years after the dismissal of the application for divorce, the matter should be raked up by letting an appeal come on record. The C.M.Application accordingly fails. MA543/11 -: 3 :- 5.We have also gone through the impugned order. The charge of adultery was found against. The plea that it was the wife who deserted the husband also did not find favour with the court below. Ultimately, it was pleaded that the marriage had irretrievably broken down. The Family Court found that the decision of the Apex Court in Ramesh Chander v. Savitri[(1995) 2 SCC 7], which was essentially rendered invoking powers under Article 142 of the Constitution, could not be acted upon as a precedent for exercise of power by the Family Court. In the result, the C.M.Application is dismissed. As a consequence, the appeal is rejected. Sd/- Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, Judge. Sd/- N.K.Balakrishnan, Judge. Sha/1607