SAROJ KUMAR YADAV vs UNKNOWN — 178/2025

Case under Hindu Marriage Act Section 13B. Disposed: Uncontested--ALLOWED on 10th March 2026.

Case disposed

MATRIMONIAL CASE

CNR: BRSW010070002025

Filing Number

599/2025

Filing Date

27-Jun-2025

Registration No

178/2025

Registration Date

27-Jun-2025

Court

DJ Div. Siwan

Judge

2-Principal Judge

Decision Date

10-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Uncontested--ALLOWED

Last updated 25-Apr-2026

Acts & Sections

Hindu Marriage Act Section 13B

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.SAROJ KUMAR YADAV

    Adv. SATYENDRA KUMAR SINGH

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.UNKNOWN

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 10-Mar-2026

    orderView PDF

    The Family Court, Siwan granted a decree of mutual divorce between Saroj Kumar Yadav and Manju Kumari under Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The court found that both parties had been living separately for over six years since 2019, the mandatory six-month cooling period between both motions had elapsed, both parties consistently affirmed their intention to dissolve the marriage, and all disputes were amicably settled with the wife receiving ₹2,30,000 as lump sum maintenance. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 10-Mar-2026

    Disposed

    Principal Judge

  4. 07-Mar-2026

    Hearing

    Principal Judge

  5. 16-Feb-2026

    Re-Conciliation

    Principal Judge

  6. 09-Jan-2026

    Re-Conciliation

    Principal Judge

  7. 07-Aug-2025

    Re-Conciliation

    Principal Judge

  8. 07-Jul-2025

    addmission

    Principal Judge

  9. 30-Jun-2025

    addmission

    Principal Judge

  10. 28-Jun-2025

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  11. 27-Jun-2025

    Case filed

    Registration No. 178/2025

casestatus.in Summary

The Family Court, Siwan granted a decree of mutual divorce between Saroj Kumar Yadav and Manju Kumari under Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The court found that both parties had been living separately for over six years since 2019, the mandatory six-month cooling period between both motions had elapsed, both parties consistently affirmed their intention to dissolve the marriage, and all disputes were amicably settled with the wife receiving ₹2,30,000 as lump sum maintenance. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case