RASISH KUMAR PANIGRAHI Vs. KALPANA PANIGRAHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appeal was preferred by appellant-husband against judgment dtd. 6/2/2017 of the Family Court. Grievance of appellant is that permanent alimony directed at ?12,00,000/- was exorbitant and hence, interference sought. Pursuant to respondent-wife having notice of the appeal, she filed cross-appeal, exercising her right provided under rule 22 in order XLI, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

(2.) On 4/4/2024, Mr. Das, learned advocate appearing on behalf of appellant-husband had filed memo dtd. 2/4/2024, for dropping the proceeding in appeal. He had submitted, there was direction by impugned judgment for payment of ?12,00,000/- as permanent alimony. The deposit was made. In the circumstances, nothing remains for adjudication, which was why the memo had been filed. Compliance had also been recorded by the Family Court on order dtd. 14/3/2019, dropping the execution proceeding, to dispose of it.

(3.) Mr. Mohanty, learned advocate appearing on behalf of respondent-wife had submitted on 4/4/2024 that his client having had duly filed cross-appeal, regarding quantum of permanent alimony directed, it required adjudication irrespective of appellant-husband not wanting to prosecute the appeal. He had obtained adjournment for relying on authority regarding his client being entitled to prosecute, where appellant wanted to withdraw.