IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR MONDAY, THE 17TH OCTOBER 2011 / 25TH ASWINA 1933 Mat.Appeal.No. 104 of 2003() --------------------------- OP.152/2002 of FAMILY COURT, MANJERI .................. APPELLANT / RESPONDENT : ------------------------------------------ CHIRAKKAL THAYOOTTI, S/O. MUHAMED, CHIRAKKAL HOUSE, PONMUNDAM P.O., TIRUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADVS. SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN SRI.V.M.KURIAN(JR.) RESPONDENT / PETITIONER : -------------------------------------------- MUTHUVATTIL NAFEESA, D/O. KUNHIMOIDEEN, CHILAVILTHOTHINDAL, PONMUNDAM P.O., TIRUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM. R1 BY ADVS. SRI.SUNIL NAIR PALAKKAT SRI.K.N.ABHILASH THIS MATRIMONIAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17/10/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Mn THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & C.T.RAVIKUMAR, JJ. ----------------------------------- Mat.A.No.104 OF 2003 ------------------------------------ Dated this the 17th day of October, 2011 JUDGMENT Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan,J. The husband is the appellant. He challenges the decision of the family court allowing an application filed by the wife under Section 2 of the Dissolution of Muslim Marriages Act. She has been granted a decree for dissolution on ground that the matrimonial relationship was irretrievably broken down. We have heard learned counsel and perused the materials. We see that the decision rests on consideration of the testimony of the wife and husband as PW1 and RW1 respectively and inferences drawn on the basis of the totality of the facts and circumstances emanating out of the legal evidence and pleadings. The couple has two children. By now, they have grown up. The family court found that the MA.104/03 2 allegation of the wife that from some time in 1992, the husband had not been caring for her is true is supported by the reasoning that the husband was not available at all and there is nothing to show that he had paid maintenance though he had pleaded that even after 1992, he was providing her maintenance. The husband was abroad. He pleaded that while abroad, he used to send home money and such funds were utilised by the wife for purchase of property in her name and also to commence a business for herself in garments. However, there is absolutely no legal evidence on the side of the husband corroborating his version to that effect. There is no further documentary evidence in proof of the so-called remittances of money by the husband while abroad, to the wife. On the whole, having regard to the quality of the jurisdiction of the family court in terms of the provisions of the Family Courts Act, 1984, we find that the court below has assimilated the facts and materials and has hence come to the conclusion that it had arrived at. We find no legal infirmity, MA.104/03 3 including in the matter of appreciation of evidence and drawing permissible conclusions on the basis of reasonable inferences. We, therefore, do not find any merit in this appeal. In the result, the appeal fails. It is accordingly dismissed. No costs. Sd/- THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, Judge. Sd/- C.T.RAVIKUMAR, Judge. kkb.20/10.