IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN THURSDAY, THE 21ST JULY 2011 / 30TH ASHADHA 1933 MFA.No. 1080 of 2002(B) ----------------------- OPDIV.123/1998 of DISTRICT COURT, PATHANAMTHITTA .................... APPELLANT(S): PETITIONER ------------------------ MONI SAMUEL, D/O.SAMUEL, MADATHIL VADAKKETHIL, ANGADICKAL NORTH P.O., KODUMON. BY ADV. SRI.S.MUHAMMED HANEEFF RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT ------------------------- BABU T.DAVID, S/O.CHINNAMMA, THANNIKKILAYATHU, V.KOTTAYAM P.O, PATHANAMTHITTA. ADV. SMT.K.L.LAKSHMI RANI THIS MISC. FIRST APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21/07/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. ----------------------------------- M.F.A.No.1080 OF 2002 ------------------------------------ Dated this the 21st day of July, 2011 JUDGMENT Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan,J. The wife is the appellant. She sued for divorce on ground of adultery coupled with desertion. That was a ground available to her under the Indian Divorce Act, 1998. No person was appointed or impleaded as co-respondent though the allegation of adultery was made. The respondent husband filed objections. He disputed the allegations of adultery and desertion. The court below examined the petitioner As PW1. No contra-evidence was placed. Yet, on the face of the denial of the allegations by the respondent, the court below dismissed the wife's application holding that there is no corroboration for her evidence regarding the charge of adultery. Having so found, the court could not have granted divorce on ground of desertion alone having regard to the law that prevailed in the year 1998, when the application from which this appeal arises was instituted before the court below. MFA.1080/02 2 Therefore, we do not find any illegality in the impugned order. We are also not inclined to take the view that the court below was wrong in dissuading itself from acting solely on the interested and uncorroborated version of the wife regarding the charge of adultery, that too, without any identifiable person who is pointed out as the adulterer and arrayed as a respondent. We find no merit in the appeal. Learned counsel on either side submit that, as of now, the marriage is irrecoverably broken down. With the passage of time, the parties can seek appropriate relief in accordance with law. In the result, this appeal is dismissed without prejudice to any other proceedings on any other count in accordance with law. Sd/- THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, Judge. Sd/- K.SURENDRA MOHAN, Judge. kkb.23/7.