IMPORTANT POINT
Divorce – Grant of permanent alimony to wife is discretion of Court.

JUDGMENT

Arindam Sinha, J.—Two appeals are before us, preferred against common judgment dated 21st January, 2023 of the Family Court. The judgment was made in C.P. no.19 of 2021, civil proceeding filed by appellant for restitution and C.P. no.128 of 2021, civil proceeding filed by respondent, for dissolution of the marriage. By impugned judgment, case for restitution was dismissed and the marriage dissolved. Appellant was wife in the marriage. Mr. Dash, learned advocate appears on behalf of appellant and Mr. Sahoo, learned senior advocate, for respondent.

2. Mr. Dash submits, the marriage was solemnized on 13th July, 2020. It was a negotiated marriage upon observing Hindu rites and rituals. On 25th October, 2020, to understanding of the parties regarding customary tradition for appellant visiting her paternal home, her brother took her there. The occasion was ‘Kumar Purnima’. She had left the matrimonial home on assurance by respondent and his father that after 15 days they will go to Dhenkanal, to bring her back. However, after lapse of one month they did not turn up. She accompanied by her father and other relatives came to her matrimonial home on 8th January, 2021. Her father-in-law disowned her and did not allow her into the house. In the circumstances, her petition for restitution of conjugal rights.

3. He submits, his client had duly sought restitution. The Family Court failed to appreciate the facts and erred in law, to dismiss her case. His client was subsequently provoked and had lodged complaint before the police. That could not and had no bearing on her claim for restitution. Impugned judgment be reversed on that ground alone, to also cover that part of it dissolving the marriage.

4. Mr. Dash submits further, though his client examined herself but her evidence was closed on the next date, in spite of her having prayed for adjournment citing her illness, disclosing medical documents. On query he submits, his client had not filed list of witnesses but neither did respondent. On further query Mr. Dash submits, in the adjournment petition there was no disclosure regarding identity of any other witness. We note that at trial only the parties were examined.

5. Mr. Sahoo submits, grounds for seeking divorce made out by his client are in his client’s petition filed under section 13 in Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. Soon after respondent had left the matrimonial home on 25th October, 2020, his client had filed for judicial separation under section 10. The proceeding was posted for admission on 8th January, 2021. His client was in the Court to prosecute the petition, for it to be admitted. At that time respondent had, with her family members, approached the matrimonial home and wrongfully confined his father, abused and threatened him. Being informed about the incident his client returned to Salipur and reported it to the local police. There was timely intervention by them. Appellant returned to her parental home along with her parents and others.

6. Next date of the civil proceeding was 20th September, 2021. His client, on that date, withdrew his petition for judicial separation. Respondent was present in Court. There was altercation in the Court premises. His client filed complaint case before the Magistrate. Cognizance was taken. Appellant stood released and is still on bail. His client filed petition for divorce. Statements regarding cruelty meted out to him by appellant are in paragraphs-7 to 9 of the petition.

7. Mr. Sahoo relies on judgments of the Supreme Court.

(i) Rakesh Raman v. Kavita dealt with on judgment dated 26th April, 2023 available at 2023 SCC OnLine SC 497, paragraphs-11, 15 and 17.

(ii) Samar Ghosh v. Jaya Ghosh, reported in (2007) 4 SCC 511, the instances given under paragraph-101. He relies on instances described in clauses (i), (x) and (xiv).

8. We see from the record, the cases went to trial and as aforesaid, the parties were examined. The Family Court analyzed evidence of appellant to find inconsiste