IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN WEDNESDAY, THE 11TH MARCH 2009 / 20TH PHALGUNA 1930 Mat.Appeal.No. 695 of 2008() --------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER of FAMILY COURT,KOZHIKODE IN OP.811/2006 .................... PETITIONER(S): APPELLANT ----------------- SUDHEER.I.P, S/O.LATE SREEDHARAN, AGED 36YEARS, RESIDING AT EDAYATTUCHALIL HOUSE, P.O.KAKKOOR, NADUVALLUR, KOZHKODE DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.M.RAJAGOPALAN SRI.RAJIT RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT ------------------- M.A.ANASREE, D/O.APPU, AGED 32 YEARS, MANKUNI HOUSE, KUNNAMANGALAM AMSOM DESOM & P.O. M.I.E, KUNNAMANGALAM, KOZHKODE DISTRICT. ADV. SRI.AVM.SALAHUDIN FOR R1 THIS MATRIMONIAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11/03/2009, ALONG WITH MA NO. 717 OF 2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED PASSED THE FOLLOWING: P.R.RAMAN & P.S.GOPINATHAN, JJ. ------------------------------- MAT. Appeal Nos.695 & 717 of 2008 ------------------------------- Dated this the 11th March, 2009 J U D G M E N T Raman, J. Mat. Appeal No.695 of 2008 is filed against the judgment of the Family Court in O.P.No.811 of 2006 and Mat.Appeal No.717 of 2008 is filed against the judgment of the Family Court in O.P.No.65 of 2007. O.P.No.811 of 2006 is filed under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Divorce Act for a decree for dissolution of marriage. O.P.No.65 of 2007 was also filed by him, under Section 10 of the Guardian and Wards Act, for getting the custody of the minor child. There was yet another M.C. proceedings also between the parties. By a common judgment dated 7.11.2007, the Family Court dismissed the petitions, holding that the petitioner has failed to prove the allegation contained in the petitions, against which the above two appeals are preferred. MAT.Appeal Nos.695 & 717 of 2008 2 2. When Mat.Appeal No.695 of 2008 came up for consideration, it was noticed that yet another appeal has been preferred against the common judgment as Mat.Appeal No.717 of 2008. Since memo are filed to the effect that the appeals are not pressed, we sent for the appeal, Mat.Appeal No.717 of 2008, for passing a common judgment, as agreed to between the parties. 3. Incidentally we noticed that a letter was received by the Registrar, directly from the petitioner, also to the effect that he is not willing to prosecute the above two appeals. In the above circumstances, both the appeals are dismissed as not pressed. P.R.RAMAN, JUDGE P.S.GOPINATHAN, JUDGE. nj.