DINESH KUMAR PATRA Vs. RINKOJINI SWAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Mr. G. Mishra, learned advocate appears on behalf of appellant-husband in these two appeals. It appears both the appeals have been preferred against judgment dtd. 14/2/2023 passed by the family Court. Mr. Mishra clarifies, by order dtd. 27/10/2022 his client's civil proceeding for dissolution of marriage was dismissed for no steps taken by his client and the counter claim made by respondent-wife had not been served as would appear from said order. That is sufficient for setting aside the order in appeal (MATA no.99 of 2023).

(2.) Mr. S. Mishra, learned advocate appears on behalf of respondent-wife and submits, both the parties had filed for divorce. His client did so by lodging counter claim after having filed written statement in the civil proceeding. There was no error by the family Court in directing permanent alimony as Sec. 25 in Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 empowers the Court to make the direction incidentally on adjudication and thereby dissolution of marriage. There should not be interference in appeal.

(3.) Mr. G. Mishra in reply reiterates, the counter claim was never served on his client. There having been omission on his client's part to appear does not take away the requirement, regarding service of the counter claim. Furthermore, there was no prayer in the counter claim for permanent alimony. However, there were statements made in it for permanent alimony.