THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO C.M.S.A.Nos. 31 and 39 of 2008 COMMON JUDGMENT: Both these Second Appeals arise out of the common judgment in Appeal Suit Nos.67 and 68 of 2004 on the file of the I Additional District Judge, Kadapa arising out of the common order in O.P.Nos.4 of 2002 and 33 of 2001 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Kadapa for grant of succession certificate. The dispute between the parties is with regard to the death-cum- pensionery benefits of one late Khaleelullah Shareef. The 1st appellant is said to be the wife and the 2nd appellant is said to be the daughter of said Khaleelullah Shareef and they filed O.P.No.33 of 2001 whereas the 1st and 2nd respondents are said to be the second wife and children of Khaleelullah Shareef. According to the case of the appellants, the 1st appellant was married to Khaleelullah Shareef and the 2nd appellant was born in lawful wedlock and consequent on the death of the said Khaleelullah Shareef, they are entitled for the succession certificate. The deceased was said to be an employee in Special Deputy Collector’s office, Telugu Ganga Unit-I, Mamillapalli, Kadapa. The 1st appellant claimed that the deceased was addicted to bad vices and he filed O.S.No.372 of 1992 for the dissolution of the marriage and it was dismissed and he died on 05.07.2001. The appellants claim to be the exclusive legal heirs. As against that the 1st respondent in the appeal, who filed O.P.No.4 of 2002, claims that the 1st appellant was married in September, 1998 to Khaleelullah Shareef and subsequently misunderstandings arose and he divorced the 1st appellant by pronouncing talaq in the presence of the elders and also sent iddat and mehr amounts to P.W.1 by way of demand drafts and subsequently he married the 1st respondent on 25.05.1997 as per the Muslim custom. On the basis of the rival contentions after framing the necessary issues, both the Original Petitions were clubbed together and the claim of the appellants were rejected accepting the divorce and granted succession certificate to the respondents. The above orders were confirmed in the appeals. A succession certificate was issued in the name of the 2nd appellant herein as she is the daughter. So far as the claim of the 1st appellant was concerned, it was dismissed. Aggrieved by the said order, the present Second Appeal is filed questioning as to whether the divorce by pronouncing talaq, which was accepted by the Courts below is legal and valid. Evidently, this being a Second Appeal, so far as the question of fact is concerned, which was accepted by both the Courts below. The appellate Court would be reluctant to interfere unless it is against the settled principles of law. Knowing the limitations, the learned counsel for the appellants relied upon a decision reported in Shamim Ara v. State of U.P. and another[1], whereunder the question of validity of talaq was considered and the plea of the husband in a written statement was held to be not valid. The Court also considered the various legal requirements of a valid talaq. In this case, the Courts below, evidently, relied upon the suit filed by the deceased but portions of the evidence given by him in C.C.No.56 of 1998 and also the judgment. The fact that the deceased lived with the 1st appellant herein is not disputed. The 1st appellant admits that there were differences between her and her husband. Admittedly, after pronouncement of the talaq, demand drafts were also said to have been sent towards maintenance for iddat period and mehr and even if the 1st appellant is to return the same, the validity of the talaq is not lost. Evidently, even the case in C.C.No.56 of 1998 was also ended in acquittal by accepting the plea of talaq. The deceased is said to have pronounced the talaq and thereafter sent the notice dated 16.08.1994 under Ex.B-16 and the reply was given by the 1st appellant under Ex.B-17. Exs.B-20 and B-21 are the demand drafts. From these documents, it goes to show that there was a communication of the talaq also to the 1st appellant. The conduct of the parties clearly goes to show that there was a valid talaq and the 1st appellant also has not taken any steps during the lifetime of Khaleelullah Shareef for maintenance to herself or her daughter and it clearly shows that there was negligence on her part as alleged by her husband and on the questions of fact, which were recorded by the Courts below concurrently, it cannot be said that there is no proof of valid dissolution of marriage. The decision relied on by the learned counsel for the appellants has no application to the facts of this case as there is evidence of conduct of the parties on record. Therefore, there are no grounds to interfere with the findings of the Courts below. Accordingly, both the appeals are dismissed. No costs. ________________________ N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO, J 27-10-2011 MR THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO C.M.S.A.Nos. 31 and 39 of 2008 DATE: 27-10-2011 MR [1] AIR 2002 SC 3551