IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS THURSDAY, THE 2ND JUNE 2011 / 12TH JYAISHTA 1933 Mat.Appeal.No. 788 of 2010() ---------------------------- OP.470/2008 of FAMILY COURT, KANNUR .................... PETITIONER(S): APPELLANT/RESPONDENT ----------------------------------- KANDAMBATH ACHAM VEETTIL, SATHYABHAMA, D/O.LATE K.U.SEKHARA PODUVAL, AGED 49 YEARS, NEAR KOKKANISSERY KANNANGAT TEMPLE, PAYYANNUR (PO), KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.M.V.AMARESAN RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONER ------------------------- K.U.GOVINDA PODUVAL, AGED 63 YEARS, S/O.POTHRAM AMMA, NEAR SREE SUBRAMANYA SWAMI TEMPLE, PAYYANNUR (P.O), KANNUR DISTRICT. ADV. SRI.V.R.KESAVA KAIMAL FOR R1 THIS MATRIMONIAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.M.JOSEPH & M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS, JJ. ----------------------------------------------- Mat. Appeal No.788 of 2010 ----------------------------------------------- Dated 2nd June, 2011. J U D G M E N T Joseph, J. The appeal is filed by the respondent/wife against the judgment of the Family Court, Kannur, by which a petition filed by the respondent, under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, seeking restitution of conjugal rights, was allowed. The Family Court allowed the petition and directed restitution. 2. We heard learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondent. Learned counsel for the appellant would essentially submit that the appellant had gone and made submissions personally. She did not get full opportunity to establish her case. 3. Learned counsel for the respondent in fact, brings to our notice that the appellant has filed O.P.913/10 before the Family Court, Kannur, seeking dissolution of marriage. In the circumstances of the case, we feel that an opportunity can be given to the appellant and both matters can be taken up and disposed of together. It is submitted that the parties will move for joint trial of the cases. Accordingly, we allow the appeal, set Mat.Appeal 788/2010 2 aside the impugned judgment and remit the matter back to the Family Court, Kannur, for fresh consideration, after giving an opportunity to both sides to establish their case. The Mat. Appeal is disposed of as above. Sd/- K.M.JOSEPH, JUDGE. Sd/- M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS, JUDGE. tgs (True copy) P.S. to Judge.