Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

2. The brief facts of the case, leading to filing of the divorce petition by the appellant-petitioner, as taken note in the 2026:JHHC:8777-DB 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.

15. So far as the issue of permanent alimony is concerned, submission has been made that the appellant is General Majdoor in CCL, B &K Area, Karo and referring to pay-slip of January, 2026 submission has been made that he is getting Net Salary of Rs. 98,350.51/-.

16. It has been contended that the appellant has been appointed on compassionate ground upon the death of his father and as such there is liability to maintain the other family members also. He has four brothers and other than that he has his own 03 children from the wedlock of his second wife. Besides, he is presently maintaining the first wife and son 2026:JHHC:8777-DB born out of wedlock of his first wife and incurring the expenses incurred on his education etc. also.

Analysis:

30. This Court has heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the finding recorded by the learned Family Judge in the impugned judgment.

31. The fact, which is necessary to reiterate herein, is that the marriage of the appellant was solemnized with the respondent according to the 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 son namely, Santosh Soren. Further case of petitioner is that in the month of January, 1992, relationship between the parties become strained for which, 2026:JHHC:8777-DB 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 their marriage and accordingly, the Manjhi Hadam Committee and Ponda dissolved their marriage on 07.02.1992 subject to the condition that the petitioner 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. After that, the appellant 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. On the backdrop of aforesaid fact, the appellant filed the suit before the learned additional family court.

2026:JHHC:8777-DB

55. The marriage was solemnized in the year 1989 and the appellant has filed the suit for divorce in the year 2023 i.e., after 33 years of marriage. Out of their wedlock one son is also there. But, during the subsistence of first marriage and the lifetime of first wife, the appellant solemnized second marriage, which fact is admitted one. As per the case of the appellant, when the appellant intended to enter the name of his second wife and children born out of the wedlock of second wife, the CCL authorities refused to enter their name and asked to furnish the divorce decree of first wife, then only such entry would be made.