2026:JHHC:2068-DB - 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI F.A. No. 164 of 2024 ---- Abhinav Kumar Gupta, aged about 36 years, S/o Shree Ram Gupta, Resident of Flat No.201, “Ghar Apna Appt, Abhiyanta Nagar, Gola Road, P.O and P.S.-Rupaspur, District-Patna (Bihar). … … Appellant Versus Soni Kumari W/o Mr. Abhinav Kumar Gupta D/o Mr. Arun Kumar Prasad, aged about 31 years Resident of Road No.1, Zone No.1/B, Kali Mandir Road, P.O. &P.S. Birsa Nagar, Jamshedpur, Dist-East Singhbhum, currently resident of M/S Tata Steel Ltd., Near Bistupur, Burma Road, 191, outer circle road, Burma Mines, Jamshedpur,P.O. & P.S.-Burma Road, Dist.-Eat Singhbhum (Jharkhand). … … Respondent with F.A. No. 165 of 2024 ---- Abhinav Kumar Gupta, S/o Shree Ram Gupta, Aged about- 36 years Gola Road, Ghar Apna Appt, Flat No. 201, Abhyanta Nagar, Gola Road, P.O and P.S.-Khagaul, District-Patna (Bihar). … … Appellant Versus Soni Kumari W/o Mr. Abhinav Kumar Gupta D/o Mr. Arun Kumar Prasad, aged about 31 years Resident of Road No.1, Zone No.1/B, Kali Mandir Road, P.O. &P.S. Birsa Nagar, Jamshedpur, Dist-East Singhbhum. … … Respondent ------- CORAM :HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR RAI ------ For the Appellant : Mr. Jai Prakash, Sr. Advocate For the Respondent : Mr. Anurag Kashyap, Sr. Advocate Mr. Bhaswat Prakash, Advocate -------- Order No. 10 : Dated 28th January, 2026 1. Both the appeals have been heard together since the parties are same and the matters are inter-related. 2. First Appeal No. 164 of 2024 has been directed against order dated 21.05.2024 passed in Original (Matrimonial) Suit 2026:JHHC:2068-DB - 2 - No. 257 of 2019 and decree signed on 30.05.2024 filed by the petitioner/appellant herein seeking relief for restitution of conjugal rights, which was dismissed by the learned family court. 3. First Appeal No. 165 of 2024 has been directed against order dated 21.05.2024 passed in Original (Matrimonial) Suit No. 392 of 2018 and decree signed on 30.05.2024 in favourof petitioner i.e., present respondent which was filed with a prayer for dissolution of marriage. 4. Mr. Jai Prakash, learned senior counsel for the appellant has submitted by pointing out the infirmities committed by the learned Family Court while passing the judgment of dissolution of marriage. It has been contended by referring to impugned judgment that although the documents have been placed in support of the pleading on behalf of appellant-husband but very surprisingly no reference of the said document has been referred in the impugned judgment. However, when application was filed before the learned Family Judge pointing out the said fact then by passing a separate order the documents have been made part of the judgment. 5. It has further been contended that the process which has been adopted by the learned family court is not support to be followed for the reason that when the documents are 2026:JHHC:2068-DB - 3 - being placed before the court of law, it is for the purpose of appreciating the documents, if produced on behalf of both the parties for the purpose of proper adjudication of the lis. The purpose of filing of the document is not a formality as would appear from the approach which has been taken by learned family court by making note separate order. It has also been contended that even no consideration is being found from bare perusal of the impugned judgment. It has been contended that the concept of the Family Courts Act, 1984 is based on the trust to be shown by the learned family court judge, who is being considered to be guardian in the matrimonial disputes. 6. Mr. Anurag Kashyap, learned counsel for the respondent-wife has submitted that after dissolution of marriage, the wife has solemnized marriage and living happily. 7. Mr. Jai Prakash, learned senior counsel for the respondent-husband, upon this has submitted that in view of the aforesaid situation of solemnization of marriage by wife, now thing is not at the stage of re-conciliation and as such he intends to withdraw both the appeals. He has further submitted that since the order of alimony has been passed and now the respondent-wife has solemnized second marriage, as such liberty may be granted to make appropriate 2026:JHHC:2068-DB - 4 - application before the learned family court for passing appropriate order in accordance with law. 8. There is no opposition of such prayer by learned counsel for the respondent-wife, so far as the consideration of the aforesaid issue by the court in accordance with law. 9. Accordingly both the appeals stand dismissed as withdrawn with the liberty to the appellant that if so advised he may approach the learned family court by filing appropriate application with respect to the issue of alimony for its consideration in accordance with law. 10. With the liberty aforesaid, both the appeals stand disposed of. 11. Pending Interlocutory Application, if any, stands disposed of. (Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.) (Arun Kumar Rai, J.) 28th January, 2026 Alankar/-