IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.Q.BARKATH ALI WEDNESDAY, THE 20TH JANUARY 2010 / 30TH POUSHA 1931 Mat.Appeal.No. 350 of 2007() ---------------------------- OP.117/2003 of FAMILY COURT,KOZHIKODE .................... APPELLANT/RESPONDENT: ------------------------------------ A.K. MAJEED, SON OF AHAMMEDKUTTY, AGED 36 YEARS, UNNIKKULAM AMSOM AND DESOM, THAMARASSERY, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT (WRONGLY SHOWN AS POONOOR P.O., KOYILANDY TALUK). BY ADV. SRI.M.P.MOHAMMED ASLAM RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONER: -------------------------- THALANCHERRY RAMLA, AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, D/O. BICHU, KIOZHAKKAYIL , AVIDANALLOOR AMSOM & DESOM, KOYILANDY TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. ADV. SRI.K.B.GANGESH FOR R1 SMT.SMITHA CHATHANARAMBATH FOR R1 THIS MATRIMONIAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.M.JOSEPH & P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JJ. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Mat.Appeal No.350 OF 2007 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 20th day of January, 2010 JUDGMENT Joseph, J. The respondent in O.P.No.117/2003 on the file of Family Court, Kozhikode is the appellant. The original petition was filed seeking dissolution of marriage. The appellant was ex parte. The case of the first respondent was that the appellant treated her with cruelty demanding more gold ornaments and money and that appellant was also very suspicious in character and he used to become violent for no reason. Her further case is that she was subjected to severe physical cruelty because of his strange character. It is also alleged that appellant was suffering from epilepsy. The Family Court allowed the petition taking note of the respondents affidavit. 2. We heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the respondent. 3. An affidavit has been filed by the respondent wherein it is inter alia stated that after a lapse of considerable time, respondent MA No.350/07 2 married again on 8-4-2007 with one Yoosuf and a son is also born and the child is about 6 months old . It is further stated that there is no chance of reunion. We are not shown any reason why we should interfere with the judgment which is impugned. We see no merit in the appeal. The Appeal fails and the same is dismissed. K.M.JOSEPH, JUDGE P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JUDGE sv. MA No.350/07 2