T.K.Rajesh Nadh vs Shimna
2023 Latest Caselaw 10483 Ker

           IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                            PRESENT
          THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN
                               &
           THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SOPHY THOMAS
    MONDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2023 / 17TH ASWINA, 1945
                   MAT.APPEAL NO. 650 OF 2014
   AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN OP 50/2013 OF FAMILY COURT,
                            VADAKARA

APPELLANT/RESPONDENT:

T.K.RAJESH NADH
AGED 38 YEARS
S/O.SIVADASAN NAIR, THALIKKUNNUMAL HOUSE, VILLYAPPALLI POST,
VATAKKARA TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, THROUGH POWER OF ATTORNEY
HOLDER, ROOPESH, S/O.SIVADASAN NAIR, AGED 34 YEARS,
THALIKKUNNUMAL HOUSE, VILLYAPPALLI POST, VATAKKARA TALUK,
KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.

BY ADV SRI.V.RAMKUMAR NAMBIAR


RESPONDENT/PETITIONER:

SHIMNA
AGED 29 YEARS
D/O.GOVINDAKURUPPU, ARYAM VALLI HOUSE, THIRUVALLUR POST,
VATAKKARA TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT - 670 502.

     THIS MATRIMONIAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
09.10.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
                                    2

Mat.Appeal No.650 of 2014


                              JUDGMENT

Sophy Thomas, J.

The husband filed this appeal challenging the decree of divorce

obtained by the wife in OP No.50 of 2013 on the file of Family Court,

Vadakara.

2. The wife filed that OP under Section 13 (1)(1a) and (1b) of

the Hindu Marriage Act, for a decree of divorce on the ground of

matrimonial cruelties and desertion. The husband appeared and

opposed the petition for divorce. But, the learned Family Court, on

analysing the facts and evidence, found that the husband subjected

the wife to matrimonial cruelties, and later deserted her, and so,

granted a decree dissolving their marriage, which was solemnised on

12.08.2005. Aggrieved by that decree, the husband preferred the

above Mat.Appeal.

3. The wife had filed OP No.213 of 2013 for recovery of

patrimony, and that was also decreed in her favour, against which the

husband preferred Mat.Appeal No.641 of 2014.

4. When these appeals came up for consideration on 09.10.2023,

learned counsel appearing for the appellant/husband submitted that,

Mat.Appeal No.650 of 2014

the appellant is not intending to prosecute Mat.Appeal No.650 of 2014,

as he had remarried after the decree of divorce in OP No.50 of 2013.

He further submitted that, the respondent/wife also got remarried and

so, there is no purpose in proceeding with Mat.Appeal No.650 of 2014,

and hence he is not pressing that appeal.

5. Considering the facts and circumstances stated above, there

is no meaning in proceeding with Mat.Appeal No.650 of 2014, as the

appellant as well as the respondent got remarried. So, Mat.Appeal

No.650 of 2014 is dismissed as not pressed.

Mat.Appeal No.641 of 2014, which was tagged along with

Mat.Appeal No.650 of 2014, is delinked and posted in the weekly list.

Sd/-

ANIL K. NARENDRAN, JUDGE

Sd/-

SOPHY THOMAS, JUDGE

smp