Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:10036-DB ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI First Appeal No. 04 of 2023 Nav Chandra Sadhu, son of Sri Byakul Chandra Sadhu, resident of Village: Kalikapur, PO: Pakur, PS: Pakur (T), District: Pakur (Jharkhand) ... Appellant Versus Jyoti Rani Das (Sadhu), daughter of Sri Ram Krishna Das, resident of Village: Ratanpur, PO: Ratanpur, PS: Samserganj, District: Murshidabad (West Bengal) … Respondent --- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR RAI For the Appellant : Mr. Rajeeva Sharma, Sr. Advocate; Mr. Om Prakash, Advocate; Mr. Ritesh Kumar, Advocate For the Respondent : Mr. Gautam Kumar, Advocate; Mr. Ashutosh Kumar Sinha, Advocate; Ms. Sarita Kumari, Advocate --- 16/02.04.2025 Heard Mr. Rajeeva Sharma, learned senior counsel for the appellant and Mr. Gautam Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent. 2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 17.11.2022 (decree signed on 01.12.2022) passed in Original Suit No. 76 of 2019 by Sri Radha Krishan, Principal Judge, Family Court, Pakur, whereby and whereunder, the suit preferred by the appellant for dissolution of his marriage with the respondent under section 13 (1) (ib) of Hindu Marriage Act has been dismissed. 3. During the pendency of this appeal, the matter appears to have been compromised and an interlocutory application being IA No. 2915 of 2025 has been filed which is by way of a joint compromise petition in which the terms and conditions of the compromise have been incorporated. However, since the same did not include any application to be preferred for dissolution of marriage under section 13(B) of the Hindu Marriage Act, vide order dated 27.03.2025, this Court had directed the respective counsels to file their supplementary affidavit incorporating the said condition. Consequent thereto a supplementary affidavit has been filed in which it has been categorically stated that both the parties shall file an application under section 13(B) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 before the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Pakur for dissolution of marriage by mutual divorce. The other condition -2- which has been enumerated in the interlocutory application appears to be with respect to the banker’s cheque dated 24.03.2025 in the name of the respondent for payment of one-time settlement of Rs.3,75,000/-. In fact, in the supplementary affidavit mention has been made that certain demands of the respondent with respect to the household articles have also been fulfilled and the almirah, showcase and other articles as mentioned in paragraph-4 of the supplementary affidavit have already been taken away by the respondent with the consent of the appellant. 4. Today, Mr. Sharma, learned senior counsel for the appellant has handed over the banker’s cheque of Rs.3,75,000/- to Mr. Gautam Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent who in turn is directed to hand over the same to the respondent. Bankers’ cheque bearing No. 000168 amounting to Rs.3,75,000/- has been produced before us and the photocopy is directed to be kept on record. 5. In view of the fact that the matter has finally been compromised between the parties on various grounds and the conditions enumerated in IA No. 1718 of 2025, IA No. 2915 of 2025 and the supplementary affidavit incorporating the terms with respect to seeking a divorce by mutual consent, we are not inclined to proceed further in this appeal which accordingly stands disposed of in view of the said compromise. 6. Pending IAs stand disposed of as well. (RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY, J.) S.B. (ARUN KUMAR RAI, J.)