Manisha Kumari @ Manisha Shukala, vs Rajnish Kumar Shukla

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Miscellaneous Appeal No.450 of 2022
======================================================
Manisha Kumari @ Manisha Shukala, Wife of Rajnish Kumar Shukla,
Resident of Quarter No.- K.D. 204, P.O.- Sindri Rora Bandh, District-
Dhanbad, State- Jharkhand. At Present Daughter of Sri Diwakar Nath Pandey,
Resident of village and P.O. Daya Chhapra, P.S.- Bairiya, District- Baliya,
State- Uttar Pradesh.
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
Rajnish Kumar Shukla, Son of Sri Sheo Shankar Shukala, Resident of
Village- Shukulpura, P.O.- Dariyapur, P.S.- Arrah Muffasil, (O.P.- Dhobahan),
District- Bhojpur, State- Bihar.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Anil Kumar Singh, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Surendra Mishra, Advocate
Ms. Rachna Shukla, Advocate
Mr. Rajiv Ranjan Pandey, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIBEK CHAUDHURI
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RANA VIKRAM SINGH
CAV JUDGMENT
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIBEK CHAUDHURI)
Date: 02-09-2026
1. The instant Miscellaneous Appeal is directed
against a judgement and decree of dissolution of marriage by
divorce, passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court,
Bhojpur at Ara in Matrimonial (Divorce) Case No. 118 of

Patna High Court MA No.450 of 2022 dt.02-09-2026
2/7
th
2012 on 25 of May, 2012.
2. Brief fact, leading to the instant appeal is as
follows:-
th
(i) Marriage of the parties were solemnized on 17
of May, 2011. The husband of the opposite party filed
th
Matrimonial (Divorce) Case No. 118 of 2012 on 25 of May,
2012, stating, inter alia, that on the next day of marriage, he
took his wife to his house and started living with her as
husband and wife. During her stay at his house, the
husband/petitioner left no stone unturned to ensure the well-
being and peaceful stay of his wife in the house. However, the
opposite party was ill-behaved from the very beginning. She
was habituated in mis-behaving with the parents of the
petitioner and other matrimonial relations. She used to
th
threaten her husband that she would desert her. On 7 of
August, 2011, the opposite party deserted him.
(ii) The petitioner and his family members
conducted vigorous search for her and lastly found her in
Sindri in the State of Jharkhand. The petitioner and his family
members tried their level best to bring her back to her house
but all their efforts were in vain. The opposite party openly
declared that she would not live with the petitioner for a

Patna High Court MA No.450 of 2022 dt.02-09-2026
3/7
moment and her second marriage would be solemnized with
another person having higher education and higher service
background. The opposite party also expressed his opinion
that her status did not match with the status of the petitioner as
he is a Constable of CRPF, posted at Assam.
(iii) The petitioner initially filed a suit for restitution
of conjugal rights against the opposite party, but in the said
suit, the opposite party did not receive the summons.
(iv) Finding no other alternative he has filed the suit
for divorce, stating, inter alia, that the separation of marriage
would be for the welfare of both, so that two lives might not
be spoiled.
(v) The opposite party contested the suit by filing a
written statement. In her written statement, she accepted her
th
marriage with the petitioner, solemnized on 17 of May, 2011.
(vi) It is contended on behalf of the opposite party that
a sum of Rs. 3,75,000/- was paid towards dowry to the
petitioner by bank transfer. Beside the said amount, the
petitioner also took golden and silver ornaments and electronic
items worth Rs. 7,00,000/-. It is further admitted by the opposite
party that she live at her matrimonial home for only 1 month
and 23 days. The petitioner and his family members were not

Patna High Court MA No.450 of 2022 dt.02-09-2026
4/7
happy to get the dowry amount and they wanted more to satisfy
their greed. The opposite party was subjected to mental and
physical cruelty. Even her parents-in-law compelled the
opposite party to share her bed with another son which proposal
the opposite party flatly denied.
(vii) It is submitted by the opposite party that she was
threatened to be murdered by her husband and other
matrimonial relations so in order to save her live, she left her
matrimonial home to take shelter at her paternal home at Sindri,
Dhanbad. All other allegations were vehemently denied by the
opposite party.
(viii) On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the
Trial Court framed as many as five issues as hereunder:-
“i) Whether the suit as framed
is maintainable;
ii) whether the petitioner has
got valid cause of action for the suit;
iii) Whether the opposite party
deserted the petitioner as alleged in
petition filed by the petitioner;
iv) Whether the petitioner is
entitled to a decree for divorce on the
ground as pleaded in the petition; and
v) To what they relief or reliefs
the petitioner is entitled.”

Patna High Court MA No.450 of 2022 dt.02-09-2026
5/7
(ix) The parties led evidence and finally on the basis
of the said evidence, the learned Principal Judge, Family Court
passed decree of divorce against the opposite party.
4. Assailing the said judgement, the opposite party has
preferred the instant appeal.
5. Only point for consideration is as to whether the
impugned judgement suffers from illegality that calls for
interference of this Court.
6. It is needless to say that the respondent herein filed
the suit for divorce only on the ground of desertion. It is his
th
specific pleading that his marriage was solemnized on 17 of
May, 2011 and his wife deserted her permanently w.e.f. August
rd
7, 2011. The respondent filed the suit for divorce on 23 of May,
2012.
7. It is clearly laid down in Section 13(1)(1-b) of the
Hindu Marriage Act: -
“(1) Any marriage solemnized, whether
before or after the commencement of this
Act, may, on a petition presented by either
the husband or the wife, be dissolved by a
decree of divorce on the ground that the
other party
(i) ……………
(ia) ……………

Patna High Court MA No.450 of 2022 dt.02-09-2026
6/7
(ib) has deserted the petitioner
for a continuous period of not less than
two years immediately preceding the
presentation of the
petition; ……………...”
8. Thus, a suit on the ground of desertion can only be
filed against either of the spouse when the opposite party deserts
the petitioner for a continuous period of not less than two years
immediately preceding the presentation of the petitioner. In
other words, the petition for dissolution of marriage on the
ground of desertion can only be passed when the opposite party
deserts his/her spouse for a continuous period of two years
immediately preceding the presentation of the petitioner.
9. In the instant case, according to the averments of
th
the petitioner, the opposite party deserted her on 7 of August,
rd
2011 and he filed the suit on 23 of May, 2012, i.e., after nine
months from the date of desertion.
10. In view of such circumstances, the petitioner is
not entitled to get a decree for divorce on the ground of
desertion.
11. For the reasons stated above, the impugned
judgement and decree of divorce is set aside and the appeal is
allowed, accordingly.
12. Since on dismissal of the decree for dissolution of

Patna High Court MA No.450 of 2022 dt.02-09-2026
7/7
marriage by divorce has been passed in the instant case, marital
tie between the parties exists. Therefore, we are not in a position
to settle the issue with regard to permanent alimony.
13. With the aforesaid observations/directions, the
instant appeal is allowed.
14. However, there shall be no order as to costs.

(Bibek Chaudhuri, J)
Rana Vikram Singh, J: I agree,
(Rana Vikram Singh, J)
uttam/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE 20.08.2026
Uploading Date 02.09.2026
Transmission Date 02.09.2026