D/L.2. July 20, 2026. MNS. CO No. 1434 of 2026 Sri Animesh Sahana Vs. Smt. Manashi Mandal Mr. Kushal Paul, Mr. Subir Banerjee, Mr. Dibyendu Nandi @ Dona Nandi, Mr. P. Pathak, Advs. … for the petitioner. Mr. Pradip Kumar Patra, Ms. Mekhala Kar, Advs. …for the opposite party. 1. The matter arises out of the dismissal of an application under Section 28 of the Special Marriage Act, 1954 (in short “the 1954 Act”) filed jointly by the parties for divorce by mutual consent. 2. The complaint of the revisionist petitioner/husband was that despite having taken the first instalment of the amount of permanent alimony which was to be paid to the opposite party/wife in terms of the said application, the latter chose to abstain from final hearing of the application for divorce by mutual consent, leading to the dismissal of the same. 3. The matter was heard on several occasions by this court. Lastly, by the order dated July 15, 2026, we recorded that the opposite party/wife was agreeable to 2 pursue the said application for divorce, subject to the revisionist petitioner/husband paying the entire amount of Rs.2,40,000/-, being the total unpaid balance of Rs. 7,50,000/- minus Rs. 5,10,000/-, which has been already paid in the meantime pursuant to the order of this Court. 4. A dispute arose as to whether the amount paid by the revisionist petitioner/husband to the wife in the meantime pursuant to the direction of the criminal court under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was to be adjusted from the balance, to which the opposite party/wife did not agree. 5. Accordingly, we had granted time to the learned Advocate for the revisionist petitioner/husband to take instruction in that regard. 6. Today, at the time of call, the learned Advocate appearing for the revisionist petitioner/husband submits that his client is agreeable to pay the entire outstanding amount of Rs.2,40,000/-, without deduction of the amount of maintenance paid in terms of the order under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code, and a bank draft has been prepared to that effect. 7. In such view of the matter, there cannot be any further impediment to the application for divorce by mutual consent being proceeded with. 8. Accordingly, CO No. 1434 of 2026 is disposed of by setting aside the impugned order dated February 25, 2025 passed by the learned District Judge, Purulia, in Matrimonial Suit No. 105 of 2024. 3 9. The learned District Judge shall now take up the application filed by the parties under Section 28 of the 1954 Act, and subject to payment of the bank draft of the balance amount of Rs.2,40,000/- by the revisionist petitioner/husband to the opposite party/wife, a decree of divorce by mutual consent, in terms of the clauses of the application under Section 28 of the 1954 Act, shall be passed by the learned District Judge, Purulia by considering the statutory timelines to have been adhered to by the parties. 10. It is expected that such exercise shall be completed within one month from the date of communication of this order to the learned District Judge. 11. For such purpose, the parties will be entitled to file a put up petition bringing to the notice of the learned District Judge the order of this Court. 12. There will be no order as to costs. 13. The learned District Judge as well as the parties shall act on the server copy of this order, without waiting for production of a certified copy of the same, for the purpose of compliance. (Supratim Bhattacharya, J.) (Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J.)