BISHNU CHARAN SAHOO Vs. SUBHASMITA PATRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Mr. Ratsingh, learned advocate appears on behalf of appellant-husband and submits, his client is aggrieved by judgment dtd. 17/12/2019 of the Family Court dismissing his client's petition for dissolution of the marriage. His client was prevented by sufficient causes from appearing at hearing of the petition, to adduce evidence. The Family Court closed evidence to be adduced by his client and thereupon allowed respondent-wife to adduce evidence, not tested in cross-examination. The Family Court went on to pass the judgment ex parte against his client. He points out from order dtd. 24/11/2019 that the Family Court made further error of recording respondent-wife had been cross-examined. He submits, impugned judgment be set aside in appeal and there be direction for remand.

(2.) Mr. Dash, learned advocate appears on behalf of respondent-wife and submits, appellant-husband did not and does not have a case. The civil proceeding was correctly dismissed. There be no interference in appeal.

(3.) Rules 8 and 9 in order IX, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 are reproduced below.