Dismissed¶8

Gorelal Yadav v. Priyanka Bharti

Jharkhand HC10 Jul 2025FA/160/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi; F.A. No.160 of 2024; neutral citation 2025:JHHC:18612-DB; decided 10 July 2025; Gorelal Yadav v. Priyanka Bharti; restoration of suit dismissed for non-prosecution; T.M.S No.234 of 2014; Civil Misc. No.10 of 2022; Family Court Dhanbad; divorce on cruelty and desertion; ad-interim maintenance and litigation cost order dated 02.02.2017; Criminal Revision No.634 of 2017 withdrawn; First Appeal No.119 of 2018 liberty dated 25.06.2020; pendente lite maintenance arrears; appeal dismissed; bench Sujit Narayan Prasad and Rajesh Kumar, JJ.; advocates Ritesh Verma, Anurag Kashyap (appellant), Achinto Sen (respondent).

What did the court decide?

No relief; the appeal was dismissed and pending interlocutory application(s), if any, were disposed of. ¶8

Gorelal Yadav Vs Priyanka Bharti — Jharkhand HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

2025:JHHC:18612-DB

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI F.A. No.160 of 2024

¶3

Gorelal Yadav, aged about 42 years, son of Sri Saryu Yadav, resident of Village – Akash Kinari Basti, P.O & P.S. - Katrashgarh, District – Dhanbad (Jharkhand).

¶4

….. Appellant

¶5

Versus

¶6

Priyanka Bharti, daughter of Sri Krishna Kumar Yadav, resident of Village – Pakri Barawan, P.S. Road, Near Post Officer, P.O & P.S. - Pakri Barawan, District – Nawada (Bihar), PIN – 805124. ..... Respondent

¶7

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR

¶8

For the Appellant : Mr. Ritesh Verma, Advocate Mr. Anurag Kashyap, Advocate For the Respondent : Mr. Achinto Sen, Advocate ---------

¶9

05/Dated: 10th July, 2025

¶10

1. The present appeal has been filed against the order dated 18.04.2024, passed by the learned Additional Principal Judge, Additional Family Court No.II, Dhanbad in Civil Misc. No.10 of 2022, whereby and whereunder the application filed by the appellant for restoration of the order of dismissal of T.M.S No.234 of 2014, has been dismissed.

¶11

2. Mr. Ritesh Verma, learned counsel appearing for the appellant has argued the matter at length.

¶12

3. It appears from the order dated 18.04.2024 that the petitioner-appellant had filed a divorce suit on the ground of cruelty and desertion against his wife. The Family court had passed ad-interim maintenance and litigation cost and directed the petitioner to pay the same vide order dated 02.02.2017. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a Criminal

¶13

- 1 - F.A. No.160 of 2024

¶14

2025:JHHC:18612-DB

¶15

Revision No.634 of 2017 dated 05.05.2017 before this Court against the said order dated 02.02.2017. The petitioner had withdrawn the said revision application and thereafter he had filed first appeal before this Court being First Appeal No.119 of 2018, wherein the petitioner was directed to approach the trial court by filing miscellaneous case for restoration of the same and thereafter the petitioner filed the miscellaneous case for restoration of the original suit.

¶16

4. We have perused the impugned order, which has been dismissed on twofold grounds. The first ground that no reason has been assigned for restoring the suit which was dismissed for non-prosecution vide order dated 08.02.2018. The second ground has been assigned that the order passed by the court with respect to pendente lite has not been complied and how the arrears will be paid there is no reference.

¶17

5. We are not concerned at this stage regarding the conduct of the present appellant as to why he is not making payment of the amount of maintenance, but certainly, when this Court has given liberty to make an application for restoration, then it is the bounden duty of the litigant concerned, the appellant herein, to make a proper application assigning the reason that why the case was allowed to be dismissed for non-prosecution.

¶18

6. Such liberty was granted by this Court on 25.06.2020, passed in F.A. No.119 of 2018, but, the application was

¶19

- 2 - F.A. No.160 of 2024

¶20

2025:JHHC:18612-DB

¶21

filed sometime in the year 2022 i.e. about lapse of more than two years.

¶22

7. This Court considers the said approach of the appellant, who is husband, that for one reason or other, he is defying the order passed by the learned Family Judge, directing him to make payment of the interim maintenance amount.

¶23

8. This Court, therefore, is not inclined to interfere with the impugned order, since, the said order has been passed by taking into consideration of the facts as referred herein above. Accordingly, the present appeal stands dismissed.

¶24

9. Pending interlocutory application, if any, stands disposed of.

¶25

(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)

¶26

(Rajesh Kumar, J.)

¶27

Ravi-Chandan/-

¶28

- 3 - F.A. No.160 of 2024

Gorelal Yadav v. Priyanka Bharti

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gorelal Yadav v. Priyanka Bharti

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bharti Singh and Ors. Vs the State of Jharkhand

Amrendra Kumar Vs Nandani Kumari

Satyendra Choubey And Ors. Vs State of Bihar

Najmul Hoda Nanho And Ors. Vs State of Bihar

K. Jagannath Rao Vs K. Malti Rao

Ajay Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

Bharti Singh and Ors. Vs the State of Jharkhand

Amrendra Kumar Vs Nandani Kumari

Satyendra Choubey And Ors. Vs State of Bihar

Najmul Hoda  Nanho And Ors. Vs State of Bihar

K. Jagannath Rao Vs K. Malti Rao

Ajay Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand

Najmul Hoda Nanho And Ors. Vs State of Bihar