IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J.B.KOSHY & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN MONDAY, THE 9TH JUNE 2008 / 19TH JYAISHTA 1930 Mat.Appeal.No. 350 of 2006() -------------------------------------- OP(HMA).349/2005 of FAMILY COURT, KOTTARAKKARA .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER ------------------------------------- JYOTHILEKSHMI,S/O.SUBHADRAMMA, SREEJA BHAVAN,KANNIMMEL CHERRY, PATTAZHI VILLAGE,PATHANAPURAM TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN SRI.M.T.SURESHKUMAR RESPONDENT/ RESPONDENT -------------------------------------------- JAYAPAL D.NAIR,S/O.DAMODARAN NAIR, JAYA MANDIRAM,NADUTHERI MURI, PATTAZHI VILLAGE,PATHANAPURAM TALUK, RESIDING AT P.B.NO.5229,ALKAFJI, SOUDHI ARABIA. BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE VARGHESE(PERUMPALLIKUTTIYIL) - R1 THIS MATRIMONIAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: J.B.Koshy & P.N.Ravindran, JJ. ===================== Mat. Appeal No.350 of 2006 ===================== Dated this the 9th day of June, 2008. JUDGMENT Koshy,J. The appellant - petitioner married the respondent as per Hindu rites on 8.4.2002. The petitioner was employed in military service as a Nursing Captain and the counter petitioner was employed in Saudi Arabia. It is the allegation that after the marriage, the respondent represented that he was not returning to Gulf and will remain in station by doing some business. But he returned Saudi Arabia. It is also alleged that the petitioner's mother gave Rs.50,000/- to the respondent for marriage expenses. It is her case that the respondent was addicted to drinks and was engaged in gambling and he used to abuse her in front of her co-workers creating much mental agony. The allegation made by the petitioner was denied by the respondent. The respondent - husband also made certain allegations against the appellant - wife. Mat. Appeal 350/06 -: 2 :- 2. In the earlier postings the husband remained ex parte and a decree for divorce was granted after taking evidence. It is submitted that after the order of divorce, she married again and there is a child and the ex parte order was set aside and evidence was taken and the Family Court found that the allegation against the husband was not proved and therefore the petition for dissolution of marriage as well as return of money of Rs.50,000/- was dismissed. 3. The parties were present today. The appellant stated that she is unable to live with the respondent. She has already married and there is a child. She told these things to the Family Court during hearing, but it was not recorded or reflected in the order. The husband stated that he never subjected her to physical cruelty and he has not given any valid reason for separation. After discussion, we are of the opinion that the marriage is irretrievably broken. They cannot live together or cannot be compelled to live together. She has married again after obtaining an ex parte decree of divorce and a child is born Mat. Appeal 350/06 -: 3 :- out of the wedlock. A reunion between the appellant and respondent is impossible. In this connection, we refer to the decisions of the Supreme Court in Naveen Kohli v. Neelu Kohli - A.I.R. 2006 S.C. 1675 and Samar Ghosh v. Jaya Ghosh - 2007(4) S.C.C. 511. In view of the developments, we set aside the impugned order and award dissolution of the marriage as the marriage is irretrievably broken. It is also recorded the submission of the appellant that she will not make any claim against the respondent. The appeal is allowed. We grant decree of divorce of marriage as the marriage is irretrievably broken. J.B.Koshy, Judge. P.N.Ravindran, Judge. ess 10/6