Devan Ramachandran, J.

The appellant challenges the judgment of the learned Family Court, Kannur, in O.P.No.337/2018. 2. The afore Original Petition was filed by the respondent seeking a direction against the appellant for restitution of conjugal rights, which has now been allowed.

3. Pertinently, after the afore Original Petition had been filed, the appellant filed O.P.No.695/2018 seeking divorce from the respondent, but which stands dismissed; against which Mat.Appeal.No.611/2025 is pending before this Court.

4. Sri.Zubair Pulikkool – learned Counsel for the appellant, argued that, even though the learned Family Court may has dismissed O.P.No.695/2018 and denied the decree of divorce against his client under the provisions of Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act , her remedies are not foreclosed, particularly because an appeal is pending before this Court and since she has an alternative liberty in law to initiate further action, including under Section 12 of the , if necessary, in future. He contended that, however, the learned Court has allowed O.P.No.337/2018 merely for the reason that his client's plea for divorce was found to be not tenable; and hence that the same is also i