The court emphasized the obligation of a parent to provide maintenance and stressed the need for credible explanations for delays in legal proceedings.

Devan Ramachandran, J.

The petitioner challenges Ext.P3 order of the learned Family Court, Kannur, which allowed Crl.M.P.No.251/2025 and CMP.No.28/2025 in M.C.No.488/2023, but on terms that he shall remit Rs.1,52,000/-.

2. Sri.V.S.Babu Gireesan – learned Counsel for the petitioner, argued that his client was constrained to file Crl.M.P.No.251/2025 in M.C.No.488/2023 because, the latter case had been decreed against him ex parte; and that he, therefore, also filed CMP.No.28/2025 to condone the delay of 226 days in filing the former application. He explained that his client was unaware of the order in M.C.No.488/2023 since his learned Counsel did not inform him, nor was the “updates of the status” of the case made known to him; and that he came to be aware of the order much later, thus causing the delay. He argued that, when his client has an arguable case on merits, the learned Court ought not to have mulcted him with terms, as has been done.

3. In response, the learned Counsel for the respondents – Sri.C.Muralikrishnan, submitted that this is not a case where the facts are as innocuous as has been presented. He pointed out that, as has been recorded in Ext.P3 order itself, the petitioner had appeared in M.C.No.488/2023 personally and was represented through a Counsel; but then refused to file his objections, or his declarations of assets; thus being set ex parte much later. He argued that the explanation of the petitioner, that his Counsel did not inform him of the status of the matter is without credibility and self serving. He contended that the conduct of the petitioner renders it luculent that his only interest is to delay the processes and nothing more; and hence, that the learned Court was well within its jurisdiction to have ordered him to deposit 50% of the amount awarded in the M.C. He explained that the M.C was filed by his clients seeking enhancement of the maintenance earlier ordered in M.C.No.146/2021; thus increasing the sum from Rs.2,500/- each to Rs.8,000/- each, per month. He predicated that, since the petitioner is the father of the respondents, his obligation to pay them necessary maintenance is writ large on the statutory scheme; and his attempt now is only to resile from such.

4. We have examined Ext.P3 and notice that the learned Family Court has allowed the parties to lead evidence, though its appendix does not reflect so. The copies of the testimonies of the parties have been made available to us by the learned Counsel for the respondents across the Bar; and they fully consented that it can be relied upon by this Court.

5. The learned Family Court has, in fact, allowed the applications of the petitioner, even though the one seeking to set aside the ex parte award in M.C.No.488/2023, was filed with a delay of 226 days. It is to condone this delay that the Court has imposed a condition of Rs.1,52,000/-, which is nearly 50% of the amount that had been awarded in the M.C, which is now under challenge.

6. The learned Court has further held that, even though, admittedly, the petitioner had appeared before it and had engaged a Counsel, he did not file his counter statement, or his declaration of assets; thus to be set ex parte.

7. Interestingly, when the petitioner was examined as PW1, he imputed that his lawyer had misdirected him and had not informed him of the status of the case, or about its end result. His statement, however, remains with no substantiation at all.

8. Obviously, we cannot find fault with the learned Family Court in having imposed a condition, as it has done on the petitioner, for condoning the delay of 226 days; particularly since, even going by such figure, it would only be Rs.4,000/- per month.

9.