BANDANA ROUT Vs. JOGENDRA ROUT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Mr. Bahali, learned advocate appears on behalf of appellants (wife and minor son). He submits, his client is aggrieved by impugned order dtd. 20/7/2017 dissolving the marriage. His client came to learn respondent-husband thereafter remarried. Hence, under compulsion his client has confined her grievance to omission to grant permanent alimony. On query from Court he submits, his client has not altered her status.

(2.) Mr. Swain, learned advocate appears on behalf of respondent-husband. On query from Court regarding discussion in impugned order for omitting to direct grant of permanent alimony, he draws attention to paragraph-2 therein.

(3.) Perused impugned order. Paragraph-2 is recital of case made out by respondent-husband. There is complete omission with reference to consideration for direction being issued on permanent alimony or why it was not granted at all.