SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(Ori) 9

ARINDAM SINHA, M. S. SAHOO
Iti Satpathy @ Kar – Appellant
Versus
Sarada Prasad Kar – Respondent


Advocates:
Mrs. Saswata Patnaik, Advocate, for the Appellant; Mr. A. Sahoo, Advocate, for the Respondent.

JUDGMENT

Arindam Sinha, J.

Mrs. Patnaik, learned advocate appears on behalf of appellant-wife and submits, her client has preferred appeal from judgment dated 28th November, 2017 made by the family Court dissolving the marriage and directing permanent alimony at ₹7,50,000/-. Respondent-husband has also preferred appeal (MATA no.43 of 2018) against quantum of permanent alimony directed by the judgment. Mr. Sahoo, learned advocate appears on behalf of the husband.

2. Mrs. Patnaik submits, there was lack of cogent evidence to prove either cruelty or unsoundness of mind of incurable nature. None of the two grounds were proved before the family Court. The learned Judge failed to appreciate and thereby erred in dissolving the marriage.

3. She draws attention to deposition dated 26th August, 2015 of respondent-husband in cross-examination. We reproduced below a passage from paragraph 2 therein.

    "I returned to my house from Kolkata to my native village 15 days after I had gone there after taking leave from my service place. After marriage till I went to Kolkata I along with the O.P were living peacefully by cooperating to each other. During the period of my stay at Kolkata, I was informed by

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top