IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN WEDNESDAY, THE 11TH MARCH 2009 / 20TH PHALGUNA 1930 Mat.Appeal.No. 153 of 2009 --------------------------------------- OP.235/2007 of FAMILY COURT, PALAKKAD .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER --------------------------------- DR.MANOJ KUMAR DAMODARAN, S/O.V.DAMODARAN, RESIDING AT "SAWPARNIKA" VANDAZHI P.O. VANDAZHI VILLAGE, PALAKKAD DISTRICT- 678706. BY ADV. SRI.G.SHRIKUMAR SRI.SREEJITH S.NAIR RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT -------------------------------------- PRIYA SIVARAMAN, D/O.A.K.SIVARAMAN, RESIDING AT "CHAITHANYA",AYYAPPAN KALAM, VALLOR POST,PATTAMBI, PALAKKAD DISTRICT-679310,NOW RESIDING AT C/O.JAYA RAVI SHANKAR, FLAT NO.16, LAKSHMI APARTMENTS, PLOT NO.11(NOW),3RD MAIN ROAD, KASTHURBA NAGAR, CHENNAI-600020. ADV. SRI.K.P.SUDHEER THIS MATRIMONIAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: P.R.RAMAN & P.S.GOPINATHAN, JJ. ------------------------------------------ Mat.Appeal No.153 of 2009 & I.A.No.732 of 2009 ------------------------------------------ Dated, this the 11th day of March, 2009 JUDGMENT Gopinathan, J. Petitioner/husband in O.P.No.235 of 2007 on the file of the Family Court, Palakkad is the appellant. He instituted the above petition seeking a decree of dissolution of marriage under Section 13(1)(ia) and (ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act on ground of cruelty and desertion. It was pleaded that the appellant married the respondent on 1.6.2004 as per the customary rites and that from the very beginning the relationship was not harmonious and that the appellant was treated with cruelty and the respondent deserted him on 6.3.2005. 2. On the other hand, the respondent contended that she was treated with cruelty by the appellant and as a counter claim prayed for a decree of divorce on ground of cruelty. 3. Parties were sent for trial and both of them were examined as P.W.1 and R.W.1 respectively. Exts.A1 to A4 were marked on the side of the appellant and Exts.R1 to R4 were marked on the side of the respondent. Mat.Appeal No.153 of 2009 2 4. The lower court on appraisal of the evidence arrived a finding that the appellant had not succeeded to establish either cruelty or desertion and so he is not entitled to a decree for divorce as prayed for. As regards the counter claim for divorce sought by the respondent, the lower court found that there is no properly laid counter claim. Consequently the petition as well as the counter claim were rejected. 5. Assailing the decree declining dissolution of the marriage, the appeal was preferred. Today when the appeal came up for hearing, the parties filed a joint petition I.A.No.732 of 2009 stating that they had been living separately since 6th March 2005 and there has been no cohabitation between them thereafter and that all attempts to reconcile failed and they have realized that their matrimonial relationship has been irretrievably broken down. Hence they jointly sought for a decree of dissolution of the marriage. 6. Having heard the learned counsels on either side, we find little reason to reject the petition. There is nothing on record to show that the petition is a collusive one. The matrimonial dispute was settled. The parties had also settled all monetary disputes between them. Mat.Appeal No.153 of 2009 3 7. In the above circumstances, I.A.No.732 of 2009 is recorded and there will be a decree dissolving the marriage between the appellant and the respondent. The petition I.A.No.732 of 2009 would form part of this judgment. P.R.RAMAN, JUDGE P.S.GOPINATHAN,JUDGE vns