An individual for whom a legal guardian has been appointed due to mental incapacity lacks the standing to independently file or pursue legal proceedings, rendering such filings unsustainable without proper representation.

JUDGMENT PREETA A.K., J.

The appellant/wife is the respondent in O.P.No.233 of 2016.

O.P.No.233 of 2016 is a petition filed by the respondent herein, husband of the appellant, seeking to appoint him as the guardian of their minor daughter.

2. In the said original petition, vide order dated 02/02/2016 in I.A.No.191 of 2016, father of the appellant (second respondent in the said original petition) was appointed as the guardian of the appellant. Thereafter as the respondents in the original petition remained absent, they were set ex parte and the original petition was allowed in part granting permanent custody of the minor child, Hanna Fathima, to the respondent in this appeal. The original petition was allowed on

30/09/2022.

3. The appellant thereafter filed I.A.No.48 of 2023 before the Family Court to set aside the ex parte decree along with a petition to condone the delay as I.A.No.1 of 2023 in O.P.No.233 of 2016. Before the Family Court, the respondent contended that the applications are not maintainable in view of the fact that the appellant has incurred legal incapacity to file the petitions. The delay in filing the application was also disputed, as according to the respondent, the delay was 290 days as opposed to 135 days stated in the interlocutory application.

4. The Family Court after considering the materials on record held that the delay in filing the application is around 300 days whereas the claim of the appellant is to condone a delay of 135 days only. It was also held that the Family Court had already passed an order appointing the father of the appellant as her guardian and hence the petition filed by the appellant is not maintainable. Accordingly, the petitions were dismissed. Hence this appeal.

5. This appeal was preferred by the appellant with a delay of

169 days. By order dated 25/03/2026, the delay in appeal was condoned on condition that the appellant pays an amount of ₹1,000/- as costs to the Kerala High Court Legal Services Committee. However, no proof was produced before this Court to show compliance with the order. On that ground alone, this Mat.Appeal is liable to be dismissed on the failure to comply with the condition.

6. However to secure the ends of justice, we have also gone into the merits of the Mat. Appeal. It is apparent from the order of the Family Court in O.P.No.233 of 2016 that the father of the appellant, the second respondent in O.P.No.233 of 2016 was appointed as guardian of the appellant as she is suffering from mental illness. Under such circumstances, the appellant has incurred legal infirmity in filing the appeal by herself. That apart, even though the delay in filing the appeal is more than 135 days and is around 300 days, she has filed an appeal only to condone a delay of 135 days. The Family Court has considered the above factors while dismissing the I.As. We find no illegality in the order passed by the Family Court.

Accordingly, the Mat. Appeal is devoid of merits and is dismissed. No costs.