IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR THURSDAY, THE 6TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 15TH KARTHIKA 1930 Mat.Appeal.No. 361 OF 2008() ---------------------------- OP.328/2006 OF FAMILY COURT, PALAKKAD .................... APPELLANT/RESPONDENT: P.S. RAMAKRISHNAN, S/O. MELETHIL SANKARA, AGED 52 YEARS, KANCHANGODE, PERADIKUNNU, NAGARIPPURAM, PALAKKAD TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.RAJESH SIVARAMANKUTTY SMT.A.PREMAKUMARI RESPONDENT/PETITIONER: RADHA, D/O. KRISHNAN, AGED 47 YEARS, THANIKKAPARAMBIL, PUNCHAPPADOM P.O., OTTAPALAM TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. ADV. SMT.T.D.RAJALAKSHMI FOR R1 SRI.R.SREEHARI FOR R1 THIS MATRIMONIAL APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMAN & T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JJ. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = C.M. APPLN. 1109/2008 & M.A. NO. 361 OF 2008 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = DATED THIS, THE 7TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2008. J U D G M E N T Ramachandran Nair, J. This appeal is filed by the husband in a matrimonial dispute. The respondent - wife filed the original petition claiming past and future maintenance and also for return of gold ornaments and cash. The appellant, though entered appearance and filed his objection, at the time of evidence remained absent and he was set exparte. The respondent was examined as PW.1 and the court below, accepting the case of the respondent, decreed the original petition as prayed for. 2. Maintenance is granted at the rate of Rs. 750/- per month for a period of three years preceding the filing of the original petition and future maintenance is granted at the same rate for a period of one year from 14.12.2005. She is also granted a decree for value of domestic utensils and value of gold ornaments amounting to Rs 20,000/- and 24,000/- respectively. Altogether, she is entitled to get an amount of Rs.80,000/- from the appellant. CM APPLN 1109 & M.A. 361/08 :2: 3. Along with the appeal, the appellant has filed C.M. Application 1109/2008 seeking to condone the delay of 244 days in filing the appeal. Notice was ordered and we have heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents. 4. In support of the application for condonation of delay, the appellant has averred that the copy of the judgment was received on 13.6.2007 and thereafter he filed I.A. 1382/2007 to set side the exparte decree. The said application was dismissed on 22.12.2007 and a copy of the same was received on 15.2.2008. It is stated that due to financial difficulties, he could not take steps to file the appeal in time. The affidavit is dated 12.6.2008. 5. On the said averments, we are not satisfied that the appellant has made out a prima facie case for condoning the delay. We have heard the parties on merits of the appeal also. 6. In this case, the evidence consists of the testimony of PW.1 as spoken to in support of the averments in the petition. 7. Going by the facts of the case, this is a case where the appellant has not challenged the order passed in I.A. 1382/2007 by which his application for setting aside the ex parte decree was also dismissed. Since no appeal has been preferred from this order, the only question that arose for CM APPLN 1109 & M.A. 361/08 :3: consideration is as to whether, on the evidence available in this case, the judgment passed by the Family Court is liable to be interfered with. 8. The value of gold ornaments claimed is Rs. 24,000/- and that of the utensils Rs. 20,000/-. In the deposition she has stated the details of the items of gold ornaments that were taken away by the appellant. It is her case that utensils she brought after the marriage, which were used for domestic purposes, were also appropriated by the appellant. It is stated that there are five children out of the wedlock and some of them have now become major. The court below has only granted Rs. 750/- per month as past maintenance for three years and future maintenance also at the same rate. We do not find any ground to interfere with the judgment under appeal. 9. Regarding the value of gold ornaments, it is the case of the respondent that the appellant has appropriated six sovereigns of gold ornaments worn by her at the time of marriage and taken to the matrimonial home. It cannot be said that the value of the gold ornaments awarded by the court below is excessive considering the market value of gold as on today. Further, no interest is awarded on the amount decreed. Therefore, the award on the said count does not call for any interference. 10. The next item is the value of domestic items. Even though the CM APPLN 1109 & M.A. 361/08 :4: learned counsel for the appellant contended that the said award also cannot be supported as there is no legal and sufficient evidence to award the same, the evidence of PW.1 can not be discarded. As we have already found that as regards the value of gold ornament what is awarded is only Rs.20,000/- and towards interest, nothing has been awarded, we find that as far as the value of utensils are concerned, no interference is called for. On the merits we are not satisfied that any interference is called for. 11. In the light of the fact that the appellant did not contest the matter after availing an opportunity before the court below and as there is no allegation that he was not given sufficient opportunity, we find no reason to remit the matter to the court below for consideration afresh. In the result, we decline to condone the delay as prayed for in C.M. Application 1109/2008. Consequently, the appeal is also dismissed confirming the judgment passed by the Family Court. P.R. RAMAN, (JUDGE) T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, (JUDGE) knc/-