Authority: High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi (Chief Justice Manoj Prasad)

Order Date: 03‑11‑2026

Case Overview

  • Parties: Appellant – Surendra Kumar Thakur (aged ~41), husband; Respondent No.1 – Babita Devi (aged ~31), wife; Respondent No.2 – General Manager, Indian Explosive Pvt. Ltd., Gomia.
  • Appeal filed under Section 19(1) of the Family Courts Act, 1984, challenging the judgment dated 30‑11‑2023 and decree dated 07‑12‑2023 of the Additional Principal Judge, Additional Family Court, Bermo, which dismissed the petition for dissolution of marriage under Section 13(1)(i‑a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
  • Marriage solemnised on 30‑04‑2005; two children (son and daughter) born out of wedlock.
  • Respondent-wife left matrimonial home on 15‑04‑2015 and has been residing with parents in Dhanbad; she expressed willingness to restore conjugal life subject to respect and honour.
  • Trial Court issues: (I) maintainability, (II) cause of action, (III) alleged cruelty, (IV) entitlement to decree on cruelty/desertion.
  • Evidence presented:
  • Appellant’s witnesses: Binod Rawani (P.W.-1), Bhim Prasad (P.W.-2), daughter Smita Kumari (P.W.-3, age 11), and appellant himself (P.W.-4).
  • Respondent’s witnesses: Ravi Thakur (D.W.-1, brother), Jitendra Mahto (D.W.-2), and the wife herself (D.W.-3).
  • Exhibits X series including compromise petition (15‑04‑2015), handwritten letters, police petitions (11‑05‑2013, 16‑11‑2013), and court orders (01‑05‑2015, 24‑03‑2015, 05‑05‑2026).
  • Trial Court findings: marriage undisputed, suit maintainable, but allegations of cruelty not proved; decree of divorce on cruelty/desertion rejected; suit dismissed.
  • Appellant’s arguments: continuous separation since 2015, witnesses support cruelty claim, desertion under Section 13(1)(i‑b), failure of trial court to consider desertion and mental cruelty.
  • Respondent’s arguments: no animus deserendi, willingness to reconcile, lack of credible evidence of cruelty, compromise in 2015 indicated cohabitation.
  • Coordinate Bench order (05‑05‑2026) directed filing of affidavits of property for interim maintenance/alimony and impleaded Indian Explosive Pvt. Ltd. to obtain appellant’s salary details.
  • Interim maintenance of Rs 3,000 ordered under Section 24 of the Act; appellant challenged via C.M.P. No.960 of 2022, which was dismissed.

Final Outcome

  • The First Appeal is dismissed without costs; the decree denying divorce on grounds of cruelty and desertion stands.
  • No separate order on interim maintenance is issued; the wife may approach a competent court for modification if circumstances change.
  • All pending interlocutory applications, if any, are disposed of.

Topics: Divorce, Family Law