Cheerangan Moideen vs Khadeeja M.T.

R. Basant, J.—This application is to condone the delay of 165 days in filing a Mat.Appeal. The appeal in turn is directed against an order obliging the petitioner/appellant to pay past maintenance to his wife at the rate of Rs. 3,000/- per mensum.

We have perused the affidavit. We have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner. We are not at all satisfied that there is sufficient ground to condone the long delay of 165 days in filing the appeal. The petition for condonation of delay does not deserve to be allowed, in these circumstances.

However, in our anxiety to ensure that the rejection of the prayer for condonation of delay does not result in failure or miscarriage of justice, we requested the learned Counsel for the petitioner to explain the nature of the challenge which the appellant/petitioner wants to mount against the impugned order. The arguments on merits have also been advanced. Marriage is admitted. The appellant is a person aged about 42 years. Separate residence is admitted. Admittedly, the appellant is employed abroad. Admittedly, two children have been born in this wedlock. Concededly, fully conscious of the obligations and responsibilities of the first matrimony with children in the wedlock, he has voluntarily embraced the responsibility, obligation and burden of a second marriage during the currency of the marriage with the respondent. Though he is employed abroad, no documents were produced before the court below to show his precise income. The wife had asserted that his income exceeded Rs. 20,000/-. There is no offer to maintain the wife on any condition. Nay, the unsubstantiated contention is raised that the wife was adulterous. With the option available for a unilateral pronouncement of divorce, the appellant had admittedly not divorced his allegedly adulterous wife. It is, in these circumstances, that the court below came to the conclusion that the appellant is liable to pay maintenance to his deserted wife.

On the question of liability, virtually we have heard no contentions raised by the learned Counsel for the appellant. The learned Counsel submits that the quantum of maintenance awarded is excessive. We have indications about the financial affluence of the appellant from the admitted circumstance that he is employed abroad. He gives us an idea of his own assessment about his financial affluence by the admitted circumstance that he has embraced the responsibility of a second marriage, fully conscious of his responsibilities under the existing marriage. In these circumstances, by no stretch of imagination can it be held that the direction to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs. 3,000/- per mensum is excessive or unreasonable as to persuade us to invoke our appellate jurisdiction u/s 19 of the Family Court Act.

We have adverted to facts only to satisfy ourselves that the rejection of the prayer for condonation of delay shall not, in any way, result in failure or miscarriage of justice.

This petition for condonation of delay is hence dismissed. Consequently, the Mat. Appeal shall stand rejected as barred by limitation.