MITA PRAMALIK Vs. SUDIP KUMAR PRAMALIK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Mr. Mohanty, learned advocate appears on behalf of appellant-wife and submits, his client is aggrieved by judgment dtd. 18/3/2020 of the Family Court dissolving the marriage.

(2.) None appears on behalf of respondent-husband. Several attempts were made to serve him. It will be sufficient for us to reproduce paragraphs 2 and 3 from order dtd. 6/12/2023, regarding sufficiency of the service.

(3.) Mr. Mohanty submits, there was neither cruelty nor desertion by his client. Dissension between the parties was because of interference by the in-laws. So much so that when there was attempt at conciliation, on respondent-husband having had earlier filed for restitution, after staying one night in a lodge, respondent-husband left his client on allegedly getting intimation that his father had been taken ill. She wanted to accompany but he did not take her along. The husband's allegation of his client being unwilling to accompany him was admitted by him to not having been brought to notice of the conciliation officer nor the Family Court. The admission was by respondent-husband in his cross-examination. He has deliberately chosen to go unrepresented, to remain unreachable from his client.