Babu Mathew P. Joseph, J.

1. The appellants in Mat. Appeal No.307 of 2005 were petitioners in O.P.No.634 of 1998 on the files of the Family Court, Thiruvananthapuram. In that O.P., the petitioners claimed maintenance from the respondent. The claim for maintenance of the first appellant was rejected and a monthly maintenance of Rs.750/-from the date of petition viz. 17.7.1998 till 31.12.2001 and thereafter at the rate of Rs.1,000/-per month were granted to the 2nd appellant. Aggrieved by the rejection of the claim for maintenance of the first appellant and dissatisfied with the amount of maintenance granted to the 2nd appellant, Mat. Appeal No.307 of 2005 has been filed. The first appellant in this case is the only appellant in Mat. Appeal No.324 of 2005. The respondent in this appeal filed O.P.No.333 of 2000 for a decree of divorce dissolving his marriage to the appellant on the grounds of cruelty and desertion. That O.P. has been decreed by the Court below. Aggrieved by the same, Mat. Appeal No.324 of 2005 has been preferred by the appellant.

2. Heard both the sides. Since both these appeals arise out of a common judgment and also considering the parties involved, we have heard both these appeals together and they are being disposed of by a common judgment.

3. The marriage between the appellant/wife and the respondent/husband in Mat.Appeal No.324 of 2005 was solemnized on 20.3.1982 in accordance with the rites and rituals followed among the Hindus. After a few months, differences were developed in their matrimonial life. A female child was born to them on 31.5.1983. It is the case of the husband that the wife deserted him on 19.10.1986. It is also his case that he was subjected to severe mental cruelty by the wife in different ways including raising allegation of illicit relationship with a lady by name Maya Jacob.

4. The wife has contested the divorce petition. The husband has contested O.P.No.634 of 1998 filed by the wife and child for maintenance. The evidence in both the cases is common which consists of the oral testimony of PW1 who is the respondent and CPW1 who is the appellant in Mat. Appeal No.324 of 2005. Exts.A1 to A15 on the side of respondent and Exts.B1 to B15 on the side of appellants were also marked.

5. The Court below, after considering the matter, found that the grounds of cruelty and desertion alleged by the respondent were true and granted a decree of divorce on those grounds. The Court below believed the evidence of PW1, the husband, and disbelieved the evidence of CPW1, the wife. Since the decree of divorce was granted on the ground of desertion by the wife, her maintenance claim was also disallowed. On considering the evidence, Rs.750/-per month from the date of petition viz. 17.7.1998 till 31.12.2001 and thereafter at the rate of Rs.1,000/-per month were granted to the 2nd appellant in Mat. Appeal No.307 of 2005 till she is married.

6. Learned counsel on both the sides have advanced detailed arguments before us. We have been taken through the evidence. We have also gone through the impugned judgment. Having heard the learned counsel on both the sides and considered the matter, we find no reason to interfere with the judgment of the Court below in respect of the maintenance allowed to the 2nd appellant in Mat. Appeal No.307 of 2005. On going through the evidence of PW1 and CPW1 and considering the documents brought to our notice, we cannot agree with the findings entered by the Court below for granting divorce. The wife relied on Ext.B2 document for proving her case that the respondent has illicit relationship with Maya Jacob. Ext.B2 is a photograph in which both the respondent and Maya Jacob appear along with the bride and the bridegroom on the occasion of their marriage. Learned counsel for the wife submitted that, subsequently, the respondent and Maya Jacob got married themselves and they are now living as husband and wife. A child was also born to them. Learned counsel for the respondent/h