IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI WEDNESDAY, THE 11TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 20TH KARTHIKA 1931 Mat.Appeal.No. 801 of 2008() ---------------------------- OP.1429/2006 of FAMILY COURT, PALAKKAD .................... APPELLANT:RESPONDENT ------------------------ SANKARAN.T., S/O.LATE THEETHI VAIDYAR, VALAYIL VEEDU, ARAMTHODI, MANJAPRA P.O., VADAKKENCHERRY, PALAKKAD. BY ADV. SRI.JOHN JOSEPH(ROY) SRI.JEFRIN MANUEL RESPONDENT: PETITIONER ----------------------------- SUJATHA, D/O.A.KRISHNAN, AGED 33 YEARS, KUPPAMPULLI VEEDU, PANAYUR AMSOM, POLPULLY, PALAKKAD TALUK. THIS MATRIMONIAL APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ. -------------------------------------------------- Mat.Appeal No.801 OF 2008 ----------------------------------------------------- DATED THIS THE 11th DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2009 J U D G M E N T Basant, J. This appeal is preferred by the appellant/husband, who is the respondent in an application for divorce filed by his wife. Divorce was sought on the ground of cruelty. The appellant in that O.P. contended that the wife who claimed divorce, and not he, was guilty of cruelty. He did not have any objection against the grant of the prayer for divorce on the ground of cruelty against him. The learned Judge by the impugned order dismissed the prayer for divorce on the ground that sufficient allegation of cruelty has not been substantiated. The wife has preferred an appeal and the same is pending before this Court as Mat.Appeal No.885/2008. Appellant herein has entered appearance in that appeal. 2. Now the appellant claims to be aggrieved by the impugned order and that is why this appeal has been preferred by him. How can he said to be legally aggrieved by the impugned order? Admittedly, there was no cross claim by him Mat.A.No.801/08 -2- for divorce on the ground that his wife was guilty of cruelty against him. In these circumstances, it cannot by any stretch of imagination be held that the appellant can be held to be legally aggrieved by the impugned order. This appeal cannot hence be admitted on that ground. However, we record that all contentions which the appellant wants to urge in support of this contention raised by him can be urged by him as respondent in Mat.Appeal No.885/2008. This Mat.Appeal is in these circumstances dismissed as not maintainable. R.BASANT, JUDGE. M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE. dsn