IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI MONDAY, THE 9TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 18TH KARTHIKA 1931 Mat.Appeal.No. 857 of 2009() ---------------------------- OP.589/2005 of FAMILY COURT,ERNAKULAM .................... PETITIONER(S): APPELLANT/RESPONDENT IN OP 589/2005 -------------------------------------------------- VARGHESE TITTO, S/O. RAPHEL, VADACKAL HOUSE, EDAMULAKADAVU, AMBATTUKAVU, THAIKKATTUKARA P.O. ALUVA -6,PRESENTLY EMPLOYED IN DUBAL ALUMINIUM COMPANY,P.O. BOX NO.3627,DUBAI, UAE, EMP NO.6619,P.LINE-6. BY ADV. SRI.ALEXANDER PETER SMT.SNEHA ROSE RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONER IN OP 589/2005 ---------------------------------------- SINCY C.S. SEBASTIAN,CHAKKUMGAL HOUSE, H/NO.7/118,CHAKKAMADOM, MATTANCHERRY P.O. COCHIN - 2. THIS MATRIMONIAL APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ. * * * * * * * * * * * * * Mat.Appeal Nos.857 of 2009 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 9th day of November 2009 J U D G M E N T Basant,J We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant. The grievance of the appellant, to say the least, is strange. An O.P was filed by his wife against him claiming return of ornaments, money etc. Subsequently, he filed a petition for divorce. Both these matters were taken up together for trial. Common evidence was adduced. At some point of time during the progress of the trial before pronouncement of judgment, the wife realised that she need not press her claim for ornaments. Accordingly, the O.P filed by her claiming return of ornaments was dismissed by the Family Court as not pressed. Not the wife; but the husband has come before this court with this appeal. 2. What is his grievance? The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the claim must have been disposed of on merits. We are unable to understand this submission at all. He cannot legitimately claim to be aggrieved by the impugned order. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the Mat.Appeal No.857/09 2 court below should have looked into the entire evidence that was placed before the Family Court. That grievance appears to be legitimate and in the appeal against the order passed in divorce petition we will advert to that grievance in detail. At any rate, the appellant's grievance against the dismissal of a petition filed against him by his wife as not pressed, does not appear to be having any substance or merit. 3, This appeal is in these circumstances dismissed. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) (M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE) jsr Mat.Appeal No.857/09 3 Mat.Appeal No.857 of 2009 We note that this Mat.Appeal, though filed as early as on 01/12/2008, has not come up for admission hearing for a long period of time. Registry shall explain to us why the matter is not posted for admission before court. Are there many other matters like this which are filed and which have not been posted for admission? Detailed report of the registry must be placed before this court within a period of five days. Mat.Appeal Nos.770 & 857 of 2008 The learned counsel for the appellant submits that he shall take instructions to ascertain whether the appellant is now willing to take out a separate residence to accommodate his wife and child. The question of admission will be considered on the basis of his response. Call on 02/11/2009. Mat.Appeal No.857/09 4 R.BASANT & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ. .No. of 200 ORDER/JUDGMENT 29/07/2009