IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI F.A. No.168 of 2024 ------

Manoj Bhuiyan, age about 40 years, Son of Late Damodar Bhuiyan, Resident of Village-Katiya, P.O.-Parsabad, P.S.-

Jainagar, District-Koderma. … … Appellant Versus Veena Kumari, W/o Manoj Bhuiyan, Daughter of Rambriksh Rikyasan, Resident of Village-katiya, P.O.-Parasabad, P.S.-

Jainagar, District-Koderma. … … Respondent -----

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR RAI …..

For the Appellant : Mr. Manoj Kumar No.2, Advocate For the Respondent : Mr. Randhir Kumar, Advocate …..

Order No.10/Dated 8^th December, 2025 Per Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.

1. At the outset, it needs to refer herein that the instant matter was referred for mediation before the Special Mediation Drive-Mediation ‘For the Nation’.

2. But the mediation failed, therefore, the matter, with the consent of the parties, is taken on merit.

3. The appeal is since barred by limitation of 11 days, for which interlocutory application being I.A. No.590 of 2025 has been filed which has been taken up before entering into the issue on merit to consider the legality and propriety of the judgment passed by the learned Family Court.

I.A. No.590 of 2025

4. The instant interlocutory application has been filed for condonation of delay of 11 days in filing the instant appeal.

5. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

6. Having regard to the averments made in this application, we are of the view that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from preferring the appeal within the period of limitation.

7. Accordingly, I.A. No.590 of 2025 is allowed and the delay of 11 days in preferring the instant appeal is condoned.

Prayer

8. The instant appeal has been filed challenging the legality and propriety of impugned judgment passed on 21.03.2024 and decree signed on 02.04.2024 by learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Koderma whereby and whereunder the Original Suit No.86 of 2021 filed by the respondent-wife under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for a decree of divorce has been allowed.

Factual Matrix

9. The brief facts of the case of the respondent-wife as narrated in the plaint, is that her marriage was solemnized with Manoj Bhuiyan/defendant (appellant herein) on 05.07.2007 in accordance with Hindu rites & customs and thereafter they were living their conjugal life at the house of defendant situated at village-Katiya, PS-Jainagar, District-

Koderma.

10. The respondent-wife got selected as Government Teacher and she is in-charge Headmaster of Utkramit Middle School, Alagdiha and has joined in the said school on 28.01.2015. The school is at a distance of 7 KM from the petitioner's residence at village-Katiya. She has got two sons from defendant who are aged about 12 years and 10 years.

11. It has been stated that respondent-wife remains busy in attending school and the defendant takes no care of children and he has been negligent towards education of children also. The defendant doesn't work and he spends his time with person who are retired from worldly affairs and also with gamblers and he also takes too much wine.

12. The respondent-wife tried to convince him for several times to give up the habit of taking liquor and coming late in the house and it is due to this reason rift was started between them.

13. The respondent-wife took several steps for changing the habit of her husband/ defendant and on 05.06.2019, she called Panchayati and persons present in the Panchayati advised him to be a careful guardian and give up the bad habits but there was no change in the behaviour &

attitude of the defendant.

14. It has been stated that on 06.09.2019 due to disputes and hot talk taken place between the parties, the defendant/husband brutally assaulted the petitioner/wife and ordered her to go out of his house. He was bent upon to oust her children but petitioner somehow saved them from the cruelty of defendant-husband.

15. She also informed to Mahila PS, Koderma from where notice was issued to both par