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 3RD NOVEMBER 2009 / 12TH KARTHIKA 1931 Mat.Appeal.No. 278 of 2005(C) ---------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER IN IA.NOS.1633&2525/03 IN OS.104/1999 of FAMILY COURT,KOLLAM .................... APPELLANT/DEFENDANT: ----------------------------------- N. DAMODHARAN PILLAI, GEETHA MANDIRAM, VALAKOM, UMMANOOR P.O., KOTTARAKARA TALUK, KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.B.MOHANLAL RESPONDENTS : PLAINTIFFS: -------------------------- 1. N. SIVASANKARA KURUP, NARAYANA VILASOM, KONNIMEL CHERRY, SAKTHIKULANGARA VILLAGE, KOLLAM TALUK.(DELETED) 2. G.D. ANUPAMA, NARAYANA VILASOM, KANNIMEL CHERRY, SAKTHIKULANGARA VILLAGE, KOLLAM TALUK. (The 1st respondent is deleted from the party array as per direction in the judgment dated 03.11.2009) ADV. SRI.P.RADHAKRISHNAN FOR R2 SRI.MADHU RADHAKRISHNAN THIS MATRIMONIAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ. ------------------------------------ Mat.Appeal No.278 of 2005 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 3rd day of November, 2009 JUDGMENT BASANT, J. This appeal filed as early as in 2005 remains in the defect list even now for the reason that the 1st respondent has not been served. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the 1st respondent is now an unnecessary party. The only role of the 1st respondent was as guardian of the 2nd respondent and the 1st respondent has no independent claim or stand in the O.P. In these circumstances, we are satisfied that it is not necessary to wait any longer to effect service on the 1st respondent. We accept the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the matter is unnecessarily dragging on awaiting service of notice on the 1st respondent. The 1st respondent is hence directed to be deleted from the array of party. Hence service is complete. 2. This appeal is directed against a decree passed by the Family Court in a suit for maintenance filed by the minor child of the appellant. Past maintenance for a period of 3 years prior to the date of the suit and future maintenance were claimed. The appellant was set exparte and accepting the version of the minor Mat.Appeal No.278 of 2005 2 daughter of the appellant, who had staked the claim through her grandfather as guardian, the Family Court had directed payment of past and future maintenance @ Rs.750/- per mensem. The minor has already attained majority. 3. The learned counsel for th appellant was requested to explain the nature of the challenge which the appellant wants to mount against the impugned decree. The paternity is admitted. Separate residence of the claimant/minor daughter with the maternal grandfather is not disputed. Quantum of maintenance is disputed. Admittedly the appellant was employed as a L.D. Clerk. It is submitted that he has subsequently retired on superannuation. We will accept all that. There is no specific evidence available about the quantum of the income by way of salary prior to superannuation and pension subsequent to superannuation. Accepting any standards, it is absolutely safe to come to a conclusion that the quantum of maintenance awarded @ Rs.750/- per mensem is not excessive. Various contentions are raised. It is urged that the past maintenance is not liable to be paid as the minor was being looked after and maintained by the appellant and the minor was not in the custody of her maternal grandfather. There is not a scintilla of data to support this. Interim direction for payment of maintenance was not Mat.Appeal No.278 of 2005 3 observed and it is, in these circumstances, that the appellant happened to be set exparte. It is significant that no attempt has been made to assail the order setting him exparte. 4. In any view of the matter, we are satisfied that there is absolutely no justification in the challenge raised against the impugned meager direction to pay past maintenance for a period of 3 years and future maintenance from the date of the petition @ Rs.750 per mensem. The impugned judgment does not warrant interference at all. 5. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the minor child has now attained majority and is married. No tangible data is produced in support of that contention. If the appellant has a case that his child is married and hence he is not liable to pay any maintenance or compensation to her, needless to say, that can be advanced before the court below. 6. In the result, this Matrimonial Appeal is dismissed. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) (M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE) rtr/- Mat.Appeal No.278 of 2005 4 R.BASANT & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ. ------------------------------------ C.M.Appl.No.2112 of 2005 in Mat.Appeal No.278 of 2005 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 3rd day of November, 2009 ORDER BASANT, J. This petition is to condone the delay of 175 days in filing a matrimonial appeal. We have heard both counsel. We are proceeding to dispose of the appeal straightaway. We are satisfied, in these circumstances, that a lenient view can be taken Mat.Appeal No.278 of 2005 5 and the delay can be condoned. 2. Petition allowed. Delay condoned. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) (M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE) rtr/-