JOSEPH @ SHIJU MATHEW Vs. K U MARY @ MINI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant and respondent are husband and wife respectively. Since these appeals are filed challenging the common judgment passed in O.P.Nos.2 & 22/2005 of the Family Court, Kalpetta and the parties are common, they are heard together and disposed of accordingly.

(2.) O.P.No.2/2005 was filed under Section 18 of the Divorce Act by the appellant, seeking a decree granting a declaration that the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent was null and void. O.P.No.22/2005 was filed by the respondent herein under Section 32 of the Divorce Act, seeking a decree granting restitution of conjugal rights. After considering the respective pleadings and evidence on record, in both original petitions, the Family Court dismissed O.P.No.2/2005 and allowed O.P.22/2005, as prayed for.

(3.) Mat.Appeal 423/2007 was filed challenging the judgment and decree passed in O.P.2/2005 and Mat.Appeal 447/2007 was filed challenging the judgment and decree allowing O.P.22/2005. The brief facts of both cases can be summarised as follows: