IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 35751 of 2003(F)
1. K.K.SASIDHARAN,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. P.K.RETNAMMA,
... Respondent
2. K.S.SHINTO,
3. K.S.SHINU,
For Petitioner :SRI.JOMY GEORGE
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.Q.BARKATH ALI
Dated :29/09/2009
O R D E R
P.Q.BARKATH ALI, J.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
W.P.(C) No.35751 of 2003
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Dated this the 29th day of September, 2009
JUDGMENT
This is a writ petition filed by the appellant in A.S.No.34 of 2003 of
the Principal Sub Court, Alappuzha seeking to quash Ext.P5 order.
2. The 1st respondent, wife of the petitioner, filed O.S.No.1234 of
1999 before the Additional Munsiff’s Court, Alappuzha claiming
maintenance at the rate of Rs.1,000/- per month to herself and to her two
children, respondent 2 and 3. The trial court by judgment dated August 10,
2000 directed the petitioner to pay monthly maintenance at the rate of
Rs.1,000/- each to the respondents. The petitioner was also directed to pay
Rs.24,000/-, as the value of gold ornaments to the 1st respondent.
Aggrieved by the above judgment, the petitioner filed A.S.No.34 of 2003
before the Principal Sub Court, Alappuzha with a petition I.A.No.783 of
2003 to condone the delay of 712 days in filing the appeal. By Ext.P5 order
dated August 14, 2003 the appellate court dismissed the petition to condone
the delay.
3. In this writ petition, though notice was issued to the respondents,
they remained absent.
4. The counsel for the petitioner was heard.
W.P.(C) No. 35751/03 2
5. On going through the order Ext.P5 dated August 14, 2003 the
appellate court dismissed the petition mainly on the ground that the
petitioner did not produce the medical certificate.
6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the
view that the appellate court should have condoned the delay and
entertained the appeal. Hence, the impugned order is liable to be set aside.
There is another aspect, maintenance at the rate of Rs.1,000/- each was
ordered to be paid to the respondents. Therefore, as a condition precedent
on allowing the writ petition and consequently to allow the petition to
condone the delay in filing the appeal, I feel that the petitioner shall pay
Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand) towards the maintenance to the
respondents. He should pay the same to the 1st respondent or deposit before
the trial court within two months from this day and produce the receipt. On
production of receipt, this writ petition will be allowed and the appellate
court shall condone the delay in filing the appeal and dispose of the appeal
on merits. If the petitioner does not pay the amount as stipulated above, this
writ petition will stand dismissed.
The writ petition is disposed of as found above.
P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JUDGE.
mn.