IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J.B.KOSHY & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN THURSDAY, THE 5TH JUNE 2008 / 15TH JYAISHTA 1930 Mat.Appeal.No. 338 of 2008() ---------------------------- OS.132/2005 of FAMILY COURT, NEDUMANGADU .................... APPELLANT/PLAINTIFF: ------------------------------------ PREMAKUMARI, AGED 32, D/O. LEELA DEVI AMMA, RESIDING AT KUNNUMPURATHU PUTHENVEEDU, CHITTAZHA, PANTHAPLAVU MURI, VATTAPARA VILLAGE, TRIVANDRUM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.R.S.KALKURA SRI.M.S.KALESH SRI.HARISH GOPINATH SRI.V.VINAY MENON SRI.M.AJAY (IRUMPANAM) RESPONDENTS: DEFENDANTS: ------------------------------------------------- 1. SUKUMARAN NAIR, AGED 41, S/O. KOCHUKRISHNA PILLAI, RESIDING AT KADAYIL VEEDU, CHITTAZHA, PANTHAPLAVU MURI, VATTAPARA VILLAGE, TRIVANDRUM DISTRICT. 2. SEETHA, RESIDING AT KADAYIL VEEDU, CHITTAZHA, PANTHAPLAVU MURI, VATTAPARA VILLAGE, TRIVANDRUM DISTRICT. BY THIS MATRIMONIAL APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss J.B.Koshy & P.N.Ravindran, JJ. ===================== Mat Appeal No.338 of 2008 ===================== Dated this the 6th day of June, 2008. JUDGMENT Ravindran,J. This appeal arises from the judgment passed by the Family Court, Nedumangad in O.S.No.132 of 2005. The plaintiff therein is the appellant. The suit instituted by her for setting aside Ext.B2 divorce deed and Ext.B3 release deed and for other reliefs was dismissed. The brief facts of the case are as follows: 2. The appellant is the wife of the first respondent. In the plaint, the appellant alleged that the properties described in the schedule to the plaint were purchased in the joint names of the appellant and the first respondent utilising the money sent to her by her brother Sathikumar from Bahrain, that the first respondent's name was also incorporated in the deed of sale as instructed by her brother, that she is the absolute owner in position and enjoyment of the plaint schedule properties, that her husband was taken to Gulf Countries by her brother Sathikumar, Mat Appeal No.338/08 -: 2 :- that after getting a job abroad, the husband became arrogant and ill-treated her and started to live with the second respondent as his wife. It is further alleged that on 19.3.1991, the first respondent along with others forcibly took her to the Sub Registrar's Office and obtained her signature on certain documents by representing that the documents relate to her consent for the first respondent's marriage with the second respondent. On these allegations, the appellant sought to set aside Ext.B2 whereby the marriage between the appellant and the first respondent was dissolved and Ext.B3 deed relinquishing her right over the plaint schedule properties in favour of the first respondent. 3. The first respondent resisted the suit. The trial court on an analysis of the evidence oral and documentary available in the case held that the plaint schedule properties were purchased by the first respondent - husband with his own funds, that the appellant left her house on 22.11.1990 along with Jayakumar, a driver by profession and started living with him as husband and wife, that a child was born to them in that relationship, that Exts.B2 and B3 were validly executed and that the case set up by Mat Appeal No.338/08 -: 3 :- the appellant that she affixed her signature in Exts.B2 and B3 without fully understanding their contents is without any merit. 4. We have considered the submissions made at the Bar by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant. The appellant while examined as PW1 had conceded that the first respondent was employed abroad since 1981, that he used to send money to her, that the plaint schedule properties were purchased while the first respondent was employed abroad and that she is presently living with Jayakumar as his wife and that a child has also been born to her. In our opinion, the Family Court was perfectly right in holding that the suit properties were acquired by the first respondent with his own funds and that Exts.B2 and B3 were validly executed. The testimony tendered by the appellant examined as PW1 conclusively establishes that the case set up by her is highly improbable. The court below, which had the opportunity to watch the demeanour of the appellant while she was examined as PW1 has held that she has failed to prove the case set out by her in the plaint. On the evidence on record, the findings of the court below cannot be said to be perverse. Further, the appellant has in clear terms admitted that she is Mat Appeal No.338/08 -: 4 :- residing with Jayakumar as his wife and that a child has also been born to her. In our considered opinion, no grounds have been made out warranting interfering with the judgment under challenge. The appeal accordingly fails and it is dismissed inlimine. J.B.Koshy, Judge. P.N.Ravindran, Judge. ess 6/6