This is a Criminal Appeal (CRL.A. No. 2764 of 2008) before the Kerala High Court, challenging the conviction of P.A. Haris under Section 55(a) of the Abkari Act by the Additional Sessions Court (Adhoc-II), Kasaragod. The prosecution case, based on a seizure on 17.10.2001, contends that Haris was found transporting 4,000 small packets of arrack (100 ml each) in eight gunny bags in a car (KL 14 A-9377) along the Cherkala Bandadukka State Highway. The car was intercepted by PW1 (an Excise Inspector) and PW7, with independent witnesses present; a gunny bag opened in their presence revealed 500 packets, and a bottle with 290 ml of liquor was collected after smell and taste tests, sealed with PW1’s seal, and Ext.P1 mahazar and Ext.P2 arrest memo were prepared. The contraband, labeled, sampled, and forwarded with Ext.P4–P7 documents, was taken to the laboratory, with Ext.P6 confirming 27.22% ethyl alcohol, indicating illicit liquor. The trial court convicted Haris and sentenced him to two years’ rigorous imprisonment and Rs. 1,00,000 fine with a default sentence of one year. On appeal, the appellant argued that the evidence rested on official witnesses without independent corroboration, that the time of arrest was not recorded, and that chain-of-custody and tamper-proof assurances about the sample were doubtful. The High Court upheld the conviction but reduced the sentence to three months’ simple imprisonment with the same fine. It directed copies of the judgment to be supplied to the appellant and clarified credit for any prior deposit of fine.
This is a bail application under Section 438 CrPC in the Kerala High Court by Jose P.D., Lourdh Jose, and Jancy Rani, accused in Narakkal Police Station Crime No. 839/2020. The FIR alleges matrimonial cruelty and harassment by the first petitioner, who is the husband of the defacto complainant, and that the first petitioner attempted to outrage the modesty of the complainant. The petitioners contend that a matrimonial dispute exists between the defacto complainant and her husband, with several related proceedings, and that the 354 IPC charge was added to strengthen the case, but no incident of outraging modesty occurred. The Public Prosecutor opposed bail, suggesting stringent conditions if granted. The court observed that the matrimonial relationship between the first accused and the defacto complainant continues, which weighs in favor of bail. It noted the well-established principle that bail is the rule and imprisonment is the exception, citing Chidambaram P v Directorate of Enforcement and general bail jurisprudence. It also considered Covid-19 related guidelines and social distancing norms as relevant to imprisonment. The judge granted bail with stringent conditions: the petitioners must appear for interrogation within 10 days; if arrest is contemplated, they must furnish bonds of Rs 50,000 with two sureties; they must not leave India; must comply with guidelines; and the court retained power to cancel bail for any violation.
This writ petition (WP(C).No.7472/2020) before the Kerala High Court seeks to quash Exts.P1 and P2 to P6 and challenge revenue recovery proceedings alleged to be illegitimate for non-quantified or non-adjudicated tentative liabilities arising from a government contract for widening the Veliavallampathy Canal. Madhu, a government contractor, was selected for the contract, with an initial estimate of ₹13,31,163, later revised to₹18,89,475, and the work was handed over in December 2004 with a completion deadline in 2005, subsequently extended. The contractor claims substantial work was completed but only part payment of ₹8,41,837.60 was made, leaving ₹3,55,947.20 unpaid. A quick verification by the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge (Vigilance) led to a finding that the total value of work performed was ₹11,97,784, and the contract was terminated at the department’s risk and cost. Despite this, the department issued a Revenue Recovery notice for ₹2,99,999 under Section 7 of the Revenue Recovery Act, before liability was quantified. The petitioner argues, citing Union of India v. Raman Iron Foundry and Abraham Sebastian v. State of Kerala, that liquidated damages cannot be recovered until adjudication and that 30% of the remaining cost should be realized only from specific sources under the PWD Manual. The court ultimately upholds the department’s position, holding that Clause 2116.2.1 of the PWD Manual permits recovery of 30% of the remaining works at agreed rates and allows realisation through revenue recovery, dismissing the petition for lack of merit.
OP (FC) No.176 of 2019; OP (FC) No.649 of 2019 These petitions challenge Ext.P15 (I.A.60/2019) in O.P.1141/2017 and Ext.P13 (I.A.1068/2019 and I.A.1148/2019) in the Family Court, Kozhikode, which directed the custodian to hand over the youngest child to the respondent and denied modification of Ext.P3 visitation orders. The petitions, filed under Article 227 of the Constitution, argue that the Family Court erred in denying modification in light of changed circumstances since 2017, including the petitioner’s temporary employment near Mukkom/Kerala and her plan to pursue a course in Mumbai, and the need for the child to be educated there. The Family Court had previously ordered that the child be in the respondent’s custody on weekends to maintain bonding with elder siblings; the High Court, by Ext.P4/Judgment, upheld Ext.P3, while Ext.P14 directed reconsideration. The petitioner contends that the orders were rendered without adequately considering her affidavit and changed circumstances. The respondent argues the custody arrangement serves the child’s welfare, keeping siblings together and ensuring stability, and that the petitioner’s travel to Mumbai was undertaken without court permission in contravention of Guardian and Wards Act, Section 26. The bench relies on welfare principles for children (Anjai Kapoor v. Baijal) and cautions against unilateral removal (Roxann Sharma v. Arun Sharma). The Court ultimately upholds the challenged orders, dismisses the petitions, and confirms Ext.P15 and Ext.P13, directing expeditious disposal of related proceedings and enforcement of prior orders.
Preetha K filed a writ petition challenging proceedings under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Securities Interest Act (SARFAESI Act) initiated by the Calicut Co-operative Urban Bank. The Kerala High Court repeatedly emphasizes its jurisdictional constraints, citing Union Bank of India v. Satyawati Tondon (2010) 8 SCC 110 and Authorized Officer, SBT v. Mathew (ILR 2018 (1) Ker. 479), holding that it cannot entertain merits of the Bank’s actions at this stage. The Bank contends that its recovery functions drive its actions and indicates a willingness to consider regularisation if the borrower timely pays overdue amounts and installments. The petitioner requests leniency and a time-bound payment plan to avert coercive measures, arguing financial hardship. The Bank welcomes a settlement proposal and asserts that early payment would serve both sides. The court, while not evaluating the legality of the measures, disposes of the petition by permitting payment with specific milestones: Rs.75,000 by 27.03.2019; the remaining balance, including charges and interest, to be repaid in eight equal installments beginning 05.04.2019, with regular EMIs. A default would revoke the relief and permit continued SARFAESI action. The judgment underscores a balance between amicable settlement and the Bank’s recovery interests, and notes that the directions are peremptory. The Appendix lists disability certificates and representations furnishing supporting material.
The appellants, who were the claimants before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ernakulam, challenged an award under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act in a death claim arising from a road accident on 9.9.2009 involving two motorcycles. The deceased, son of the appellants, was a Bachelor’s level student in mechanical engineering (2006–2009). The Tribunal held the appellants’ claim under Section 163A and awarded Rs. 1,84,500, holding that the deceased was a non-earning student, calculating notional income at Rs.15,000 per annum under Clause 6(a) of the second schedule and applying a multiplier of 18 with a 1/3 deduction for personal expenses, along with Rs.2,000 for funeral and Rs.2,500 for loss of estate. The Tribunal also held that the appellants 2 and 3 were not legal heirs under the Indian Succession Act, and thus the first appellant alone would receive the amount. The appellants argued that the accident victim had bright future earning prospects and that the court should adopt the principles of “just compensation” from cases like Ningamma and Pranay Sethi, possibly converting the petition to a Section 166 claim with a higher, conventional damages framework. The respondents contended that 163A and 166 are independent and mutually exclusive, and that the award should stand as is. The Kerala High Court ultimately allowed the appeal in part, enhanced the compensation by Rs.25,500, and directed the insurer to deposit the enhanced amount within two months, applying conventional damages guidelines from Pranay Sethi while reaffirming the exclusivity of 163A and 166.
CRL.A NO.161 OF 2017; CRA(V) NO.469 OF 2017 This is a combined Kerala High Court judgment in Cr.L.A. Nos. 161 of 2017 and CRM (V) No.469 of 2017 arising from a murder case tried by the Additional District & Sessions Court-I, Manjeri. The appellant is A.P. Moideen, accused No.1, who was convicted under Section 302 IPC for the murder of his wife, based on the testimony of eye-witnesses, including PW1 (brother of the deceased) and others who reached the scene shortly after the incident, and on circumstantial evidence (MO1, three wooden frame pieces). The prosecution asserted the weapon was a wooden frame and linked the crime to long-standing enmity between the couple and the wife’s family. The defense challenged the credibility of PW1, argued MO1’s identity and the weapon’s nature (door vs. window frame), questioned the lack of chemical testing, and urged applying Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC, arguing a fit of anger and no premeditation given the accused’s age and illness. The State contended there was no provocation or sudden quarrel and that the ocular evidence and surrounding circumstances establish the accused’s intent to kill. The High Court held the eye-witnesses credible, rejected the defense’s premeditation arguments, and concluded that there was clear premeditation and intent to kill, upholding the trial court’s conviction and life sentence with fine. The appeals were dismissed, confirming the conviction and sentence."
This is a Kerala High Court criminal miscellaneous case (Crl.M.C. No.8028 of 2017) arising from Crime No.1039 of 2012 registered with Neyyattinkara Police Station and the connected case C.C.No.478 of 2015 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Neyyattinkara. The petition, filed by 1st to 22nd accused, seeks to quash the entire proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The Garda of the matter lies in a dispute over trespass, threats, and theft of trees on the de facto complainant’s property, with the first information report lodging allegations of offences under Sections 447 (criminal trespass), 379 (theft), and 506(i) read with 34 IPC. The petition relies on a compromise between the accused and the second respondent (the de facto complainant), evidenced by Annexure-A3, wherein she states she does not want to prosecute further and has no objection to quashing. The second respondent’s counsel does not dispute the genuineness of Annexure-A3, and the public prosecutor corroborates by noting that the real trouble-causer is no more and that there is no complaint against others. The High Court, applying Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, holds that where acts are not heinous and a settlement exists, the proceedings may be quashed to prevent abuse of process. Consequently, the court quashes the entire CC proceeding against all petitioners.
W.P.(C).Nos.8691 & 17823 of 2013 This Kerala High Court writ petition concerns the allotment of quarters to permanent contingent employees of the Kochi Corporation and the unauthorised occupation of such quarters. Petitioners in W.P.(C).Nos.8691/2013 and 17823/2013, who are contingent employees, contend that despite the availability of quarters near their workplaces, the Corporation has failed to allot housing and that several unauthorised occupants (R4–R7) are occupying quarters intended for contingent staff. They argue that the Corporation’s failure to act contravenes the Kerala Public Buildings (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1968 and the accompanying Rules for allotment and Occupation of Government Servants' Quarters in Kerala. The respondents acknowledge limited quarter stock (149 quarters for 823 employees) and claim that some occupancies are by legal heirs or non-employees, with steps already being taken to evict unauthorised occupants; a sub-committee's report is cited. The court notes the stay on eviction due to a prior order but directs the Corporation to consider the extant documents (Ext.P2–P5), hear all parties, and proceed under law. It directs eviction if unauthorised occupancy is found and allotment to petitioners within two months, with a further three weeks to finalise allocations, and it clarifies that encroachers are to be evicted in accordance with law, distinguishing prior precedents on occupancy of public land.
The petitioner Celin Joseph, owner of land aggregating approximately 26.21 acres in Survey No.131 at Poyya Village, Thrissur District, challenges Ext.P10, an order dated 07.12.2018 passed by the 4th respondent (Sub Collector/RDO) rejecting Ext.P4 (09.11.2015) for reclassification of the land under Clause 6 of the Kerala Land Utilization Order, 1967. The writ petition seeks quashing Ext.P10 and mandamus directing reconsideration of Ext.P4, or at least directing the 4th respondent to act in consonance with a report purportedly issued by the 7th respondent, aligning with the dictum in Kunjumoideenkutty v. Marakkara Grama Panchayat (2018 (3) KLT 1033). The court acknowledges that Ext.P10 is appealable under Clause 11 of the Kerala Land Utilization Order, 1967. It then surveys jurisprudence—from Chaabil Das Agarwal to Titaghur and Thansingh Nathmal—on the discretionary nature of Article 226 writs and the primacy of an efficacious statutory remedy. The court concludes that the writ is unwarranted, emphasizing that statutory avenues exist and should be exhausted, save for exceptional cases. The petition is dismissed, but the petitioner retains the right to challenge Ext.P10 via the statutory appeal mechanism before the Land Revenue Commissioner, under Clause 11 of the KLUO.
W.P.(C) Nos. 25723/2013 & 28226/2007 The petitioners—serving and retired members of the Kerala Public Service Commission (PSC)—challenge an amendment to Regulation 4(2) of the PSC Regulations, 1957, which fixes their pay after deducting the pension they draw from prior government service. Petitioners had argued that PSC members are constitutional office-holders and should not be treated as re-employed government employees; they relied on earlier jurisprudence, including Nakara, to claim full salary plus pension. Respondents contend that Article 316, Article 318, and Article 322 of the Constitution empower the Governor to determine conditions of service for the PSC and that Regulation 4(2), along with Rule 100 of Part III KSR, governs the fixation of pay for re-employed pensioners, ensuring parity and preventing dual benefits. The court traces the regulatory history: the 1998 amendment allowed dual benefits, which was nullified in 2002 (Ext.P3), restoring the pre-1998 position consistent with Rule 100. The judgment holds that Regulation 4(2)(ii) read with Rule 100 does not violate the Constitution and that total emoluments should not exceed the pay admissible to the PSC post, taking into account pension. It dismisses the petitions, upholding the amended regime and the regulatory framework governing PSC pay, pension, and allowances.
MACA.NO. 2600 OF 2015 & CO.NO. 71 OF 2016 This Kerala High Court MACA/CO appeal arises from a Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal award in favor of the legal representatives of Wellesly Vincent who died in a road accident on 12.04.2013. The deceased, aged 57, worked as a loading/unloading worker; he left behind a wife, Beena Mary, and four daughters. The insurer challenges the Rs.18,66,599 awarded, contending the Tribunal erred in late-night calculations and in overestimating income and conventional heads. The claimants urge that the deceased was the sole breadwinner and that the award should reflect loss of dependency, loss of consortium, and love and affection, beyond the Tribunal’s amount. The Court relies on Pranay Sethi and Sarla Verma principles to re-evaluate the compensation, including future prospects (15% for a 57-year-old), deduction for living expenses, and the multiplier method. It emphasizes that the Motor Vehicles Act is welfare legislation, obliging the court to award just compensation even for heads not pleaded. The Bench revisits the component heads under consortium and estate, and filial rights, drawing on Magma General Insurance Co. v. Nanuram and other precedents to ensure a fair award. The result is a revised compensation totaling Rs.5,08,552 with 9% interest, plus costs, to be paid within 30 days, failing which 12% interest would accrue.
WP(C) No. 4389/2014; OP(Crl) No. 98/2018; Crl.M.C. No. 662/2018 These consolidated proceedings arise from petitions challenging the stage at which sanction under section 19(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 is required before taking cognizance or directing a police investigation under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. The Kerala High Court reviews conflicting Supreme Court pronouncements: RR Chari v. State of U.P.; Gopal Das Sindhi v. State of Assam; Jamuna Singh v. Bhadai Shah; Devarapalli Lakshminarayana Reddy v. Narayana Reddy; Anil Kumar v. M.S. Aiyappa; Sundeep Kumar Bafna; and Manjju Surana. The Court recognises serious divergence and notes that Manjju Surana has referred the issue for a larger Bench. It concludes that, pending a final decision in Manjju Surana, sanction from the competent authority should be obtained before directing an investigation under section 156(3) against a public servant. Accordingly, OP(Crl) 98/2018 is disposed of with Ext.P3 upheld as justifiable; WP(C) 4389/2014 and Crl.M.C. 662/2018 are to proceed only after sanction; the Court remits certain issues for the Single Judge’s further hearing. The judgment ultimately clarifies that the issue remains unresolved until a larger decision is rendered, while delivering interim directions to harmonise pre-cognizance actions with PC Act requirements.
This writ petition by S. Harikumaran (the petitioner) challenges the rejection of his tender for supply and erection of pumps under the Kerala Water Authority project, and seeks certiorari to quash Exhibits P4 and P7 and mandamus to award the tender to the petitioner or retender. The tender notice required pre-qualification and proof of past experience within eight years, and the petitioner, along with the 4th respondent (M/S Hydro Electrical System), participated. The petitioner contends the rejection was on highly technical grounds and that the 4th respondent was equally unqualified, as Exhibit P10 shows the offered pump does not meet specifications; the 4th respondent’s experience certificate lacked a seal and some documents were submitted after the tender opening. The respondents counter that low life-cycle cost pumps are a new technology, that the petitioner failed to provide documentary evidence of past experience and financial standing, that the 4th respondent’s documents were verified and found in order, and that there was urgency in completing the work which is ongoing. The court observes that tender evaluations and pre-qualifications are within the discretion of the tender inviting authority, and that courts generally cannot re-evaluate technical aspects, citing established Supreme Court precedents. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed, upholding the tender process decisions.
This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution challenges Ext.P4 order of confiscation of the petitioner's motor car KL-08/AV-1802 under the Abkari Act, following seizure on 15.12.2016 for allegedly transporting 125 litres of Indian Made Foreign Liquor in 250 bottles. The petitioner, the registered owner, contends personal knowledge of the offence is lacking; Ext.P5, an agreement dated 12.12.2016, shows the vehicle was hired for touring by Mr. Unais through Mr. Jishnu, but Ext.P5 was not executed by the petitioner. He argues the vehicle, a non-transport LMV, should not have been subjected to confiscation under Section 67B and that the owner has the right to avoid confiscation if he proves lack of knowledge or connivance by himself, his agent, and the person in charge, and that all four prerequisites under Section 67C(2) are satisfied. The 3rd respondent confiscated the vehicle under Section 67B after a show-cause under 67C; Ext.P4 upholds the confiscation after an appeal. The respondents contend that possession was handed over to a third party and Ext.P5 proves the owner’s involvement by entrusting the vehicle for illicit purposes. The High Court, after surveying case-law (including Shaiju, Rajesh-related decisions, Suraj K.R., Sebastian Joseph, and Manual Vinod) holds that the burden of proof rests on the owner to establish lack of knowledge/connivance by all concerned and that the four conditions must be satisfied. The petition is dismissed and the confiscation order affirmed."
Union of India v. A. Geetha and others concerns a claim for compensation filed by Sandhya's mother and siblings before the Railway Claims Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench, under Section 16 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987, following Sandhya's death in an untoward incident on 8 April 2002 near Manjadimoodu, Chirayinkeezhu, while travelling on the Thiruvananthapuram–Ernakulam line. The Tribunal awarded Rs 4,00,000 with 9% interest from 25.7.2003, directing 50% of the amount to be deposited in fixed deposit for three years for the minor claimants. The Union of India challenged this order in the High Court, contending that Sandhya's status as a bona fide passenger could not be established because no ticket was produced and a chain was not pulled by co-passengers; the absence of ticket evidence and the place of discovery of the body cast doubt on travel. The respondents argued that the railway authorities should conduct a proper enquiry under the Railway Passengers (Manner of Investigation of Untoward Incidents) Rules, 2003 (as amended 2007) and that the burden lay with the Railway, not the claimants. The Kerala High Court upheld the Tribunal's award, rejecting the challenge, and noted that Chap. 13 of the Railways Act reflects the Legislature's compassionate approach to victims of untoward incidents and that the Railway authorities must investigate; hence the appeal fails.
This writ appeal arises from disciplinary proceedings against K.T. Mathew, then General Manager of Kerala State Construction Corporation (KSCC), but the appellant in the High Court matter is The Kerala Co-operative Milk Marketing Federation Ltd. (MILMA) along with its Board of Directors and Managing Director. Mathew, an employee of MILMA, was charged with insubordination for wilfully disobeying directions given by the Managing Director and related counts of negligence and failure to take charge. The Enquiry Officer found him guilty of charge 1 (insubordination); the disciplinary authority imposed two increments as punishment, which was confirmed by MILMA’s Board. A writ petition challenged these findings and the punishment, leading to interference by the learned Single Judge. The present Division Bench reverses aspects of that interference, upholding the finding of insubordination as justified and legal, but determines the punishment to be disproportionate given the time elapsed. Relying on established constitutional and statutory principles (Gunasekaran guidelines on interference, and due process benchmarks), the Court concludes that while the guilt is proven, the punishment should be moderated to withhold only two increments with cumulative effect. The judgment affirms the employer’s prerogative but corrects excesses in punishment, without remanding for rebreathing or bias considerations. The writ appeal is allowed with modified relief.
This is a Motor Accidents Claims Appeal (MACA. No. 2439 of 2012) arising from an award under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, in O.P.(MV) No.186 of 2006 before the MACT, Muvattupuzha for injuries sustained in a motor accident on 1 January 2006. The appellant, Sajeev @ Saji Issac, challenged the Tribunal’s quantum, arguing that the notional monthly income should be higher; the Tribunal had fixed it at ₹3,000 and awarded a total compensation of ₹1,99,721. The insurer (and owner) were held liable. The High Court, in a Division Bench, re-examines the various heads of compensation considering the evidence, medical records, and disability certificates. Notably, relying on Ramachandrappa, the court re-fixes the appellant’s notional income at ₹5,000 per month despite the Tribunal’s ₹3,000 figure, and applies the standard multiplier of 14 as guided by Sarla Verma for calculating disability-based compensation. It finds that the appellant had sustained severe injuries, including an open fracture and neurological impairment, but not necessarily permanent disability as per the record. The court then recalculates several heads: increased loss of earnings to ₹25,000 (from ₹12,000); general expenses to ₹6,000 (from ₹5,000); pain and suffering to ₹20,000; loss of amenities to ₹20,000; and a disability amount of ₹60,000, culminating in an overall enhanced compensation of ₹86,000. The insurer is directed to deposit the enhanced amount within two months, with interest at 8% per annum, and the appeal is disposed of with no costs order.
WA.No. 2375 of 2016 in WPC 28073/2016 Praveen V.P., an applicant for the post of Assistant in universities in Kerala, challenged the Kerala Public Service Commission’s (PSC) selection process following the recruitment examination conducted in May 2016. After the written test, the PSC published an initial provisional answer key and invited objections. To resolve contested items efficiently, the PSC constituted an Expert Committee to review the objections; the Committee ultimately deleted six questions and corrected several answers, with the final answer key published on 10 June 2016. A provisional list of 5000 candidates and, subsequently, a final rank list, were issued on 10 August 2016. Several writ petitions were filed challenging the process, alleging that certain questions were evaluated using incorrect answers, that questions were arbitrarily deleted, and that some questions with factual errors remained uncorrected. The PSC maintained that the Expert Committee's recommendations were based on a proper procedure. The learned Single Judge dismissed the petitions, noting that disputes over the correctness of some answers were common among experts, and that this court cannot re-judge the conclusions of the Expert Committee. On appeal, the Division Bench upheld the reasoning, found no infirmity, and held that the court should not interfere with the PSC’s evaluation process. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.
Mat.Appeal No. 182 of 2010 Ajithakumari R. v. A.S. Subhagan arises from a Family Court in Alappuzha which granted a divorce decree on grounds of mental cruelty and desertion. The couple married on 11 September 1990. The husband alleged that from the very beginning the wife quarreled with the in-laws, lodged false complaints against him with relatives, and insisted on a separate residence even after he constructed a house on seven cents of land. He claimed that she continued to harass him by spreading gossip and making baseless allegations about him to neighbours and friends, thereby tarnishing his reputation. He further alleged that on 8 April 2003, his wife, along with her father, brothers, and rowdies, manhandled him; after this incident there was no cohabitation. The wife denied cruelty, asserting that the husband drank heavily, behaved cruelly towards her and the children, and demanded money and property. She contended that she left the matrimonial home with the children after the incident and did not return. The Family Court found mental cruelty and desertion on the basis of the evidence of the petitioner and two neighbours (PW2, PW3) and granted a divorce decree. The appellant challenged the judgment arguing lack of specific cruelty and misreading of evidence, citing several judgments on cruelty thresholds. The Kerala High Court, after evaluating the evidence, upheld the Family Court’s findings and dismissed the appeal, leaving the divorce decree intact.
