Salim.M vs Febin.M
2024 Latest Caselaw 17106 Ker

Kerala High Court

Salim.M vs Febin.M on 20 June, 2024

Author: P.Somarajan

Bench: P.Somarajan

             IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                PRESENT
              THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.SOMARAJAN
     THURSDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF JUNE 2024 / 30TH JYAISHTA, 1946
                          RPFC NO. 81 OF 2024
 AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 18.04.2023 IN MC NO.160 OF 2017
                    OF FAMILY COURT, PALAKKAD
REVISION PETITIONER/RESPONDENT:

          SALIM.M,
          AGED 46 YEARS,
          S/O MUTHUKUTTY, PUTHANPURAYIL (H), OLIPPARA, KAIRADY
          (PO), AYILOOR CHITTUR, PALAKKAD, PIN - 678510
          BY ADV L.RAJESH NARAYAN


RESPONDENT/PETITIONERS:

    1     FEBIN.M, D/O MUHAMMED HUSSAIN, KALLAMPARAMBU MANAPPADAM
          P.O, PUTHUCODE, ALATHUR, PALAKKAD, PIN - 678687
    2     FAHMIDHA SHERIN.S
          D/O SALIM, KALLAMPARAMBU MANAPPADAM P.O, PUTHUCODE,
          ALATHUR, PALAKKAD, PIN - 678687
    3     AFHAM HAFIS.S
          AGED 13 YEARS
          S/O SALIM, KALLAMPARAMBU MANAPPADAM P.O, PUTHUCODE,
          ALATHUR, PALAKKAD REPRESENTED BY HIS MOTHER AND NATURAL
          GUARDIAN FEBIN M, PIN - 678687
          BY ADVS.
          AHAMMAD SAHEER M.A.
          MUHAMMED YASIL
          E.A.HARIS


     THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 20.06.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 RPFC NO. 81 OF 2024

& Crl.M.A.2/2024

                                          2


                                        ORDER

Crl.M.A.2 of 2024 is an application for condoning

a delay of 99 days in filing this revision. The

revision is against the order of maintenance extended

to the wife and child by the trial court. Earlier,

it was submitted by the learned counsel for the

petitioner that he will deposit 50% of the arrears

within a time schedule and it was ordered

accordingly. But, no amount was deposited. This

would show what is behind it, especially when there

is a delay of 99 days in prosecuting this revision.

The reason advanced in the application is also found

to be flimsy and cannot be accepted. Hence, the

application for condonation of delay will stand

dismissed, especially when it is against the order of

maintenance to the wife and child. Nobody will be

permitted to delay and defeat the right of

maintenance. As such, unless there is warranting

reason, it is not permissible to condone the delay.

The delay condonation application will stand RPFC NO. 81 OF 2024

dismissed.

The revision petition is highly belated and is

barred by limitation. Hence, the RP(FC) will stand

dismissed as barred by limitation.

Sd/-

P.SOMARAJAN JUDGE msp