IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI FRIDAY, THE 16TH JULY 2010 / 25TH ASHADHA 1932 Mat.Appeal.No. 332 of 2006() ---------------------------- AGAINST O.P.NO.438 OF 2005 OF FAMILY COURT, MALAPPURAM PETITIONER(S): APPELLANT/RESPONDENT ----------------------------------- YAHU, AGED 65 YEARS, S/O.UMMER, PILAKKULANGARA HOUSE, ALATHIYUR AMSOM DESOM, TIRUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.C.M.MOHAMMED IQUABAL RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONER ------------------------- AYISHAKUTTY, AGED 51 YEARS, W/O.YAHU, PILAKKULANGARA HOUSE, ALATHIYUR AMSOM DESOM, TIRUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-1. ADV. SRI.K.M.FIROZ THIS MATRIMONIAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ. * * * * * * * * * * * * * C.M.Application.No.2049 of 2006 & Mat.A.No.332 of 2006 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 16th day of July 2010 O R D E R & J U D G M E N T Basant,J This application is to condone the delay of 105 days in filing a Mat.Appeal. The Mat.Appeal in turn is directed against an order directing payment of past maintenance by the appellant/husband to the respondent/wife. The spouses are aged 55 years and 50 years. Marriage is admitted. Separate residence is not disputed. There has been a decree for payment of future maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C and in such proceedings, maintenance has been awarded at the rate of Rs.1,250/- per mensum. 2. The respondent has entered appearance. The application for condonation of delay is opposed. We have heard both sides. 3. We are not satisfied that any valid reasons have been shown to exist to justify the prayer for condonation of the long delay of 105 days. Marriage having been admitted and separate C.M.Application.No.2049 of 2006 & Mat.A.No.332 of 2006 2 residence having not been disputed, we note that there is no worthwhile contentions raised before the court below to justify the challenge against the impugned order. In our anxiety to ensue that the rejection of the prayer for condonation of delay does not result in any miscarriage of justice, we requested the counsel to explain the facts and the nature of the challenge which the appellant wants to mount against the impugned order. It is not disputed that the appellant had married again. His willing and voluntary undertaking of the obligation to maintain another wife and children after the first marriage, give some clue about his own financial position as assessed by him. The amount of monthly maintenance awarded is only Rs.1,250/- per mensum. We specifically wanted the counsel to explain whether the direction for payment of future maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C at the rate of Rs.1,250/- per mensum is challenged. The learned counsel for the respondent submits that there is no challenge. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the counsel does not know whether there has been such a challenge. 4. We have considered all the relevant inputs. We are not persuaded to agree that there is any worthwhile challenge to C.M.Application.No.2049 of 2006 & Mat.A.No.332 of 2006 3 be raised in the appeal. We are convinced that the rejection of the prayer for condonation of delay is not likely to result in any miscarriage of justice. 5. In the result, this petition 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 // True Copy// PA to Judge C.M.Application.No.2049 of 2006 & Mat.A.No.332 of 2006 4