Sasmita Sahoo vs Rajendranath Behera

Mr. Bhoi along with Mr. Sahoo, learned advocates appear. Mr. Sahoo hands up memo of date, to which is attached postal receipt showing dispatch and unserved postal article addressed to respondent-husband bearing endorsement ‘Intimation absent, deposit six days. Unclaimed. So return to sender.’ They submit, there be record of compliance of direction made by paragraph 4 in our order dated 8th April, 2024. The paragraph is reproduced below.

“4. Mr. Bhoi has leave to retire. He is requested to obtain website copy of this order and communicate same to his client”

We have compared address in returned postal article. It matches with address given in impugned judgment. The compliance is accepted.

Mr. Pattanaik, learned advocate appears on behalf of appellant-wife and submits, though by impugned judgment the marriage was dissolved at his client’s instance but there was error made in directing wholly inadequate permanent alimony at ₹6,00,000/- (rupees six lakhs). His client as well as the daughter are dependent on the parents.

Mr. Pattanaik points out from paragraph 7 in impugned judgment that it is said to proceed on basis of evidence. On query from Court he submits, in fact his client had not adduced any evidence regarding quantum.

Adjournment is granted for appellant-wife to discover evidence, if any regarding husband’s salary. On production of it, we will consider whether we will look at it for purposes of adjudication of the appeal and to pass judgment.

List on 24th June, 2024 as prayed for by Mr. Pattanaik.

………………………….