2025:KER:25835 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.B. SNEHALATHA TUESDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 4TH CHAITHRA, 1947 MAT.APPEAL NO. 839 OF 2020 AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 02.02.2019 IN OP NO.1332 OF 2013 OF FAMILY COURT, NEDUMANGAD APPELLANT/1ST RESPONDENT: ARAFATH AGED 40 YEARS S/O.MUHAMMED ALI, ROADARIKATHU VEEDU, ARCH JUNCTION, MANNORKONAM P.O., THOLICODE VILLAGE, NEDUMANGAD, TRIVANDRUM-695 541. BY ADVS. M.R.SARIN Harish Kumar B ANJALY JOSEPH(K/723/2020) RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER/2 ND RESPONDENT: 1 SHANA AGED 30 YEARS D/O.ZEENATH BEEVI, RIGI MANZIL, ARUVIKKARA VILLAGE, NEDUMANGAD TALUK, TRIVANDRUM-695 541. 2 DISTRICT MEDICAL OFFICER, DISTRICT MEDICAL OFFICER, RED CROSS ROAD, GENERAL HOSPITAL, VANCHIYOOR P.O., TRIVANDRUM-695 035. Mat.Appeal.No.839 of 2020 2 2025:KER:25835 BY ADVS. N.P.ASHA K.K.DHEERENDRAKRISHNAN OTHER PRESENT: SMT N P ASHA THIS MATRIMONIAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25.03.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Mat.Appeal.No.839 of 2020 3 2025:KER:25835 JUDGMENT Devan Ramachandran,J. The appellant has filed this appeal against the judgment and decree of the learned Family Court, Nedumangad, in O.P.No.1332/2013. 2. The afore Original Petition was filed by the 1st respondent seeking a declaration that she is entitled to have her name incorporated as the wife of the appellant in his service records. In refutation, the appellant took a contention that he had already divorced the 1st respondent through a triple talaq declaration, but this was found against him by the learned Family Court. However, interestingly, the learned Family Court then dismissed the Original Petition, holding that the 1st respondent is entitled neither to any declaration as sought for by her, nor can she claim her name to be incorporated as the wife of the appellant in the service records. 3. It is thus obvious that the learned Family Court had dismissed O.P.No.1332/2013 on its merits; and that this appeal has been preferred by the appellant only against certain findings therein. It is well settled that an appeal against the judgment which dismisses the claim of the opposite side is not Mat.Appeal.No.839 of 2020 4 2025:KER:25835 maintainable. 4. Sri.Harish Kumar B. - learned Counsel for the appellant, conceded to the afore proposition; but requested that his client's liberty to file a cross objection, in the event the 1st respondent files an appeal against the impugned judgment and decree, be left open. In the above circumstances, this appeal is dismissed as being not maintainable; however, with every liberty open to the parties, including that which has been requested by Sri.Harish Kumar B., on behalf of the appellant. Sd/- DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN, JUDGE Sd/- M.B. SNEHALATHA, JUDGE Mms