A decree for divorce cannot be passed on concession except in the manner as provided in Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act.

BHASKAR BHATTACHARYA, J. :-

This first appeal is at the instance of a wife in a suit for divorce on the ground of cruelty and this appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 8th December, 2006 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, First Court, Howrah, in Matrimonial Suit No. 117 of 2006 thereby passing a decree for divorce and also granting a decree for permanent alimony to the tune of Rs. 3,00,000/- payable by the husband to the wife.

2. Being dissatisfied, the wife has come up with the present first appeal.

3. At the time of hearing of the inter-locutory applications in connection with the first appeal, our attention was drawn to the fact that in this case, the learned trial Judge, while disposing of an application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, without disposing of the said application by the wife, granted the main relief claimed in the suit, i.e. the decree of divorce itself, although in the suit, the wife was yet to file the written statement and the date was fixed for hearing of the application under Section 24 of the Act. In view of such unprecedented fact, we immediately called for the Lower Court Records and after the arrival of the Lower Court Records, we decided to hear out the appeal itself by dispensing with the necessity of filing the formal paper books.

4. We find that after the filing of the suit by the husband, the wife filed an application under Section 24 of the Act giving rise to a Miscellaneous Case thereby praying for alimony pendente lite at the rate of Rs. 8,000/- a month on which the Court issued notice upon the husband, although, such Miscellaneous Case arose out of a suit filed by the husband for divorce and, thus, there was no necessity of issuing formal summons upon the husband and the requirement could be dispensed with by service of the copy of the application upon the learned advocate for the husband in the same suit. Be that as it may, 20th August, 2006 was the date fixed for filing written objection to the application for alimony pendente lite and the Court on that day adjourned the matter on the prayer of the husband and fixed 30th November, 2006 for hearing of the application for maintenance.

5. On 30th November 2006, the parties filed Hazira and the husband filed an application for filing written objection against the application for alimony pendente lite. The Court on that date directed the husband to be present on the next date fixed namely, 8th December, 2006, with specific observation that in case of absence of the husband on that day, he would dispose of the Misc. Case ex parte.

6. It appears from Order No. 4 dated 8th December, 2006 that both the parties were present with their respective lawyers and the learned Trial Judge recorded that he tried for reconciliation between the parties but according to him, the parties reached a point of no return due to the impotency of the husband. He has further recorded that the husband accused the wife for his impotency. After recording such fact, the Court observed that the parties had reached such a stage that they could not stay together and they deposed that they wanted divorce.

7. It is further recorded that the learned advocates of both sides had submitted that they had no objection for divorce provided that the alimony of Rs. 3,00,000/- was paid by the husband by 7th March, 2007. It is further recorded that the Court was, therefore, of the opinion that the permanent alimony to the tune of Rs. 3,00,000/- should be paid by the husband through Bank Draft in the name of the wife and having regard to the evidence on record and in view of submission of both the parties the suit should not be dragged any further and accordingly, he had passed a decree for divorce on that day itself.

8. It may be mentioned here that in the order-sheet, there is no indication that on that day i.e. December 8, 2006, any witness was examined; however, it appears that there is typed short examination-in-chief of the father of the