Anoop Parol vs Neethu Das

P.Somarajan, J

The respondent/husband came up against the order of maintenance to the wife at the rate of Rs.4,000/-per month and to the child at the rate of Rs.3,000/-per month simply on the reason that he is a coolie worker and is not able to maintain his wife and child. At the trial court, he remained ex parte, without contesting the application and no evidence was also tendered directly by him. It is thereafter this RPFC is filed in the year 2023 with an application, Crl.M.A.No.1/2023, to condone the delay occasioned which comes to 480 days. This would show what is behind it, especially in the matter of granting maintenance to the wife at the rate of Rs.4,000/- per month and to the child at the rate of Rs.3,000/- per month. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner/husband that he remained absent only in one posting and till that time he was contesting the application. The amount ordered by the Family Court is mere pittance, hardly sufficient to meet the requirement. They are entitled to a decent and dignified life. The amount ordered by the Family Court does not reflect the actual requirement of the original petitioners/the wife and child. The reason advanced by the petitioner/husband that he has no means to pay the amount cannot be sustained as he is an able bodied man. Necessarily, the order passed by the Family Court deserves no interference. The delay occasioned is not explained. Even no steps were taken either on the delay condonation application or on the revision in spite of the order of this court. Hence, the delay condonation application – Crl.M.A.No.1/2023 will stand dismissed for non prosecution and the revision petition is dismissed as time barred.

The Registry shall send a copy of this order today itself to the Family Court with a direction to proceed further without causing further delay in the matter.