R. Narayana Pisharadi, J.

The appellant is the wife and the respondent is the husband.

2. The respondent filed O.P.No.985/2012 in the Family Court for granting a decree of divorce. The appellant filed written statement in O.P.No.985/2012 along with a counter-claim against the husband and his parents for return of gold ornaments and realisation of money. As per the judgment dated 09.11.2017, the Family Court dismissed for default the petition for divorce filed by the husband. This appeal is filed by the wife raising a plea that the Family Court has not disposed of the counter-claim filed by her.

3. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant as well as the respondent.

4. Learned counsel for the respondent contended that the appeal is not maintainable at the instance of the wife against the dismissal of the petition for divorce which was filed by her husband. There is merit in this contention. There is no appealable decree or order passed against the wife in the petition for divorce. It is true that the wife had filed counter-claim against the husband and his parents. But, the lower court has not passed any appealable decree or order in the counter-claim. Therefore, the appeal is not maintainable.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the lower court should have proceeded with the counter-claim filed by the wife inspite of the dismissal of the petition for divorce filed by the husband. There is force in this contention.

6. Order VIII, Rule 6D of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 reads as follows:

“6D. Effect of discontinuance of suit.- If in any case in which the defendant sets up a counterclaim, the suit of the plaintiff is stayed, discontinued or dismissed, the counter-claim may nevertheless be proceeded with.”

7. A bare perusal of the aforesaid provision would show that even if the suit is dismissed, the counter-claim shall be proceeded with. Dismissal of the suit does not terminate the proceedings in the counter-claim. The counter-claim remains alive and it requires adjudication even after the dismissal of the suit for default or otherwise.

8. In Rajni Rani v. Khairati Lal, (2015) 2 SCC 682, the Supreme Court has held as follows:

“On a plain reading of the aforesaid provisions it is quite limpid that a counter-claim preferred by the defendant in a suit is in the nature of a cross-suit and by a statutory command even if the suit is dismissed, counter-claim shall remain alive for adjudication. For making a counter-claim entertainable by the Court, the defendant is required to pay the requisite Court fee on the valuation of the counter-claim. The plaintiff is obliged to file a written statement and in case there is default the Court can pronounce the Judgment against the plaintiff in relation to the counter - claim put forth by the defendant as it has an independent status. The purpose of the scheme relating to counter-claim is to avoid multiplicity of the proceedings. When a counter- claim is dismissed on being adjudicated on merits it forecloses the rights of the defendant. As per R.6A(2) the Court is required to pronounce a final judgment in the same suit both on the original claim and also on the counterclaim. The seminal purpose is to avoid piece - meal adjudication” (emphasis supplied)

9. At this juncture, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the husband has filed an application before the lower court as I.A. No. 2579/2018 for restoration of the petition for divorce which was dismissed for default. It is also submitted that the husband has filed another application as I.A. No. 2578/2018 for condoning the delay of 233 days in filing the application I.A. No. 2579/2018. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the wife has not so far received any notice in those applications.

10. In the circumstances mentioned above, the appeal is liable to be dismissed as not maintainable. But, we do not find it necessary to compel the wife to approach this Court again with a petition under Article 227 o