Jharkhand HC: husband could not show wife knew of 2016 ex parte decree, so divorce is refused
A division bench led by Justice Sujit Narayan Prasad upheld a Ranchi Family Court judgment refusing a husband divorce under Section 13(1A)(ii). He took no step to enforce his own conjugal-rights decree, and nothing showed the wife knew of it or meant to end the marriage.
A husband won an ex parte decree in 2016 ordering his wife to return to him. He then waited more than two and a half years before asking for a divorce on the strength of it. The Jharkhand High Court has upheld the refusal. He could not show that she knew of the decree or meant to end the marriage.
Justice Sujit Narayan Prasad wrote the judgment for a division bench that also included Justice Akhil Kumar. They dismissed First Appeal No. 148 of 2025, filed by Mithilesh Kumar, now of Ranchi, against his wife, Rita Devi, who lives in Dhanbad.
A 1995 marriage and a 2013 departure
The appeal was filed under Section 19(1) of the Family Courts Act, 1984. It challenged the judgment of 19 March 2025 of the Additional Family Court-I, Ranchi, in Original Suit No. 270 of 2019, which dismissed the husband’s petition for divorce.
The couple married on 11 May 1995 and have two sons, who live with their mother. The husband said they lived together in Ranchi until 13 April 2013, when his wife left with the children for her parents’ home at Bhuli, Dhanbad. He said she refused to return and wanted him to settle there.
He filed a suit for restitution of conjugal rights, M.T.S. No. 197 of 2013, in the Family Court at Ranchi. It was decreed ex parte on 11 November 2016.
Dowry complaint, mediation, a second exit
The wife told a different story. She said she suffered assault and torture over dowry demands, and filed Complaint Case No. 1205 of 2013 in the Chief Judicial Magistrate’s court at Dhanbad under Sections 498A, 323 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code.
The husband moved this High Court for anticipatory bail in A.B.A. No. 708 of 2014. The dispute went to the JHALSA Mediation Centre, where both sides agreed on 24 June 2015 to live together with their children in Ranchi.
The husband said the wife and their younger son came to Ranchi and he paid more than Rs 10,000 to re-admit the boy to school. He said she left again in August 2015 and refused to return. She said she was beaten and thrown out of the house once more, and that he had settled only to get bail.
Maintenance first, divorce later
The wife filed for maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. On 10 June 2016 the Dhanbad Family Court ordered Rs 6,000 a month for her and the children.
The husband challenged that in Criminal Revision No. 1043 of 2016, which this High Court dismissed on 1 July 2020, and the bench noted that he began paying only after that.
He filed his divorce suit on 29 April 2019. It rested mainly on desertion, in that she had stayed away even after the 2016 decree. The Family Judge framed five issues and held that he had not proved his case even on a preponderance of probabilities.
Arguments in the High Court
Mr. Anurag Kashyap appeared for the husband. He argued that the wife has lived apart since 2017 despite the decree, and that the Family Court had not looked at that in the right perspective.
Mr. Sanjay Prasad appeared for the wife. He argued that the decree was passed ex parte by suppressing the settlement at mediation, that she was willing to live with her husband, and that compelling circumstances kept her away.
What Section 13(1A)(ii) allows
The provision lets either spouse seek divorce if there has been no restitution of conjugal rights for one year or more after a decree for restitution in a proceeding between them. The bench read it as giving an independent right to either spouse, whichever of them obtained the decree.
The aim, it said, is that a decree that fails to restore harmony may leave a marriage broken in substance. Non-restoration for the statutory period is a valid ground, the judges said, irrespective of which party first got the decree.
Three gaps in the husband’s case
The bench recorded the facts it treated as established. The suit for divorce came more than two and a half years after the decree. The husband had shown no step to execute or enforce the decree with a bona fide intention of restoring cohabitation.
The judgment in M.T.S. No. 197 of 2013 also made no mention of the JHALSA settlement, or of the parties having lived together while that case was pending. The wife said she did not know of the ex parte decree, and the husband produced nothing to show she did.
The Family Court had drawn the inference that her living apart was not deliberate, and not meant to end cohabitation for good. She had said clearly that she was willing to live with him. Her separation, it held, followed from prolonged discord and continuous litigation.
Separation proved, intention not
The High Court agreed. The husband, it said, had not adduced “any cogent and reliable evidence” that she had not resumed conjugal life despite knowing about the decree.
The judges then turned to desertion. The separation itself stood established, they said, but he had failed to prove that she intended to end cohabitation permanently. The materials, including her statement of willingness, pointed instead to circumstances.
The bench said the husband’s conduct, in challenging the maintenance order up to the High Court and paying only after losing, reflected a lack of concern for his wife and children.
The judgment also records the wife’s own evidence that she has not tried to meet him or live with him since 2015, and that she did not attend the funeral rites of her mother-in-law.
Order
The High Court held that the husband had not shown perversity in the Family Court’s judgment. It dismissed the appeal and disposed of pending interlocutory applications.
Judgment was reserved on 29 September 2026 and pronounced on 5 November 2026.