The court held that the existence of sufficient grounds for divorce must be demonstrated, alongside appropriate permanent alimony reflecting the spouse's standard of living prior to separation.

JUDGMENT :

Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.

1. The instant appeal, under Section 19 (1) of the Family Court Act, 1984, is directed against the order/judgment dated 14.05.2025 and decree signed on 22.05.2025 passed by the learned Additional Principal Judge, Additional Family Court, Bermo at Tenughat (Bokaro) in Original Suit No. 200 of 2023, whereby and whereunder, the suit filed by the petitioner-appellant [husband] for dissolution of marriage by decree of divorce u/s 13(1)(i-a)(i-b) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 against the respondent-wife, has been dismissed.

2. The brief facts of the case, leading to filing of the divorce petition by the appellant-petitioner, as taken note in the impugned order, needs to be referred herein, which reads as under:

3. The marriage of the appellant was solemnized with the respondent according to Santhal rites and custom on 15.01.1989. After marriage the appellant and respondent led their conjugal life and out of their wedlock, they have been blessed with a son namely, Santosh Soren. Further case of petitioner is that in the month of January, 1992, relationship between the parties become strained for which, on 07.02.1992 a meeting was called for in presence of Manjhi Hadam in which the parties agreed to part their ways by way of dissolution of marriage. It is alleged that in the meeting, the respondent has admitted that there was no cohabitation between her with the appellant since last two years and she had illicit relationship with some other person. After hearing the statements of the parties, the Manjhi Hadam Committee and Ponda dissolved their marriage on 07.02.1992 subject to the condition that the appellant would give 10 decimals of land to his son Santosh Soren for which an agreement was also executed. Thereafter, the appellant has solemnized his second marriage with Kajol Kumari @ Kajri Devi in presence of Manjhi Hadam Committee.

4. Thereafter, the appellant has presented an application before the G.M. Office, Karo, CCL to endorse the name of his second wife as his nominee, but the officer denied to add the name of Kajri Devi as nominee and suggested to bring a divorce certificate from the competent court.

5. On the backdrop of aforesaid fact, the appellant filed a suit being Original Suit No. 200 of 2023 before the learned additional family court.

6. On being noticed, the respondent appeared on 21.08.2023 but did not file written statement as such the learned family court vide order dated 22.11.2023 debarred the respondent-wife from filing her written statement.

7. After hearing both the parties, the learned Additional Principal Judge, Additional Family Court, Bermo at Tenughat framed issues for adjudication of the case and after framing the issues both the parties were directed to adduce evidence on their behalf.

8. The appellant-petitioner has examined altogether four witnesses in support of his case, as P.W.1-Suresh Manjhi; P.W.2-Shanicharwa Manjhi @ Mangla Manjhi, the appellant himself; P.W.3 Kajri Devi and P.W.4-Kartik Manjhi. Whereas the respondent has examined three witnesses in her support as D.W. 1-Santosh Kumar Soren, the son; D.W.2-Atwari Devi, the respondent herself and D.W. 3-Shanichar Manjhi [brother of the appellant].

9. The learned Additional Principal Judge, Additional family court, after appreciating the evidence adduced on behalf of parties, came to the conclusion that the petitioner-husband, the appellant herein, could not prove the ingredients of cruelty and desertion against the respondent