IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Mat.Appeal.No. 274 of 2005()
1. YAKKIPARAMBAN HASSANKUTTY,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. CHEERANTHODI NUSAIBA, D/O. MUHAMMED,
... Respondent
2. AYISA SHAHANA, 2 YEARS.
3. MUHAMMED SHABEER, 1 1/2 YEARS,
For Petitioner :SRI.M.K.CHANDRA MOHANDAS
For Respondent :SRI.BABU S. NAIR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT
The Hon'ble MRS. Justice M.C.HARI RANI
Dated :03/11/2009
O R D E R
R.BASANT & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ.
————————————
C.M.Appl.No.2061 of 2005 &
Mat.Appeal No.274 of 2005
————————————-
Dated this the 3rd day of November, 2009
ORDER/JUDGMENT
BASANT, J.
This petition is to condone the delay of 20 days in filing a
matrimonial appeal. The appeal in turn challenges a decree for
payment of past maintenance to the wife and child. Total
amount payable under the decree is Rs.31,050/-. The
respondent has entered appearance. We are satisfied, in these
circumstances, that a lenient view can be taken and the delay
can be condoned.
2. Petition allowed. Delay condoned.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant
on merits for admission. The impugned order directs payment of
past maintenance @ Rs.600/- per mensem to the wife and
Rs.450/- per mensem each to the two minor children. It is thus
that the total amount of Rs.31,050/- is payable as past
maintenance.
4. Marriage is admitted. Paternity is not disputed.
Separate residence is conceded. Admittedly the appellant is an
C.M.Appl.No.2061 of 2005 &
Mat.Appeal No.274 of 2005 2
autorickshaw driver. There is a contention that the appellant has
gone abroad in search of an employment and has taken up
employment there. He, who was present before court during the
initial stages, did not later on appear before court. He was
represented thereafter by his power of attorney holder/mother.
The power of attorney holder examined herself as RW1. The
court below, in these circumstances, came to the conclusion that
the claimants are entitled to past maintenance at the rates
indicated above.
5. The appellant claims to be aggrieved by the impugned
order. What is the grievance? The only grievance raised is that
the amount of maintenance awarded is excessive.
6. We will completely ignore the fact that the appellant
has now gone abroad and is alleged to have taken up
employment there. Even admittedly, at the relevant time he was
an autorickshaw driver. Even reckoning him only as an able
bodied person, we are satisfied that the quantum of maintenance
awarded is absolutely fair, reasonable, modest and just. The
same does not at all warrant interference invoking the appellate
C.M.Appl.No.2061 of 2005 &
Mat.Appeal No.274 of 2005 3
jurisdiction under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act.
7. In the result, this Matrimonial Appeal is dismissed.
The impugned order is upheld.
(R.BASANT, JUDGE)
(M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE)
rtr/-