SAMITA MISHRA Vs. SURYAKANTA HOTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appeal has been preferred by appellant-wife being aggrieved by judgment dtd. 3/5/2016 of the Family Court dissolving the marriage at instance of the husband, carrying consequential directions regarding alimony and maintenance for her and her minor son. Mr. Pradhan, learned advocate appears on behalf of appellant-wife and Mr. Mishra, learned advocate for respondent- husband, who has also filed cross objection challenging the directions for alimony.

(2.) Order sheet reveals appellant-wife before us wanted reconciliation, at least for well being of the child. She wanted and still wants to go back and live with her husband. Here it would be appropriate to reproduce below paragraphs-1 to 3 from our order dtd. 4/3/2024.

(3.) Mr. Pradhan submits, there was no act of cruelty by his client. Impugned judgment is erroneous in finding otherwise. He reiterates, his client wants reconciliation and the son, she is confident, will cause it. His client is ready to live with her husband and she wants to put everything behind her and together move forward.