The Jharkhand High Court upheld the husband’s divorce on the grounds of cruelty and desertion, but still enhanced the wife’s permanent alimony to ₹40 lakh. Can a husband be forced to pay ₹40 lakh alimony even after the wife’s cruelty and desertion are proved?
RANCHI: The Jharkhand High Court, through Justice Sujit Narayan Prasad and Justice Sanjay Prasad, upheld the husband’s divorce after noting that the couple had lived separately for nearly 36 years.
The couple got married on 29 May 1984. They had one daughter. According to the husband, the wife left the matrimonial home in 1990 and never returned. He also said that she had filed a criminal case against him under Section 498A IPC and other sections, which was later compromised.
The wife opposed the divorce. She claimed that the husband had an illicit relationship with another woman and because of that she was forced to live separately. She also argued that at this stage of life, divorce was not justified.
The Family Court had granted divorce on the grounds of cruelty and desertion. The wife challenged this order before the High Court.
The High Court noticed that both sides had been living separately for about 36 years and there was no real possibility of reunion. The Court said that the marriage had become “dead wood marriage” and had lost its emotional and practical value.
The Court relied on the Supreme Court judgment in Durga Prasanna Tripathy v. Arundhati Tripathy and observed that when parties have crossed the point of no return, they cannot be forced to live together. The High Court said:
“A workable solution is certainly not possible. Parties cannot at this stage reconcile themselves and live together forgetting their past as a bad dream.”
The High Court also said that matrimonial disputes must be decided by looking at ground realities, and the most important question is whether the marriage can still be saved.
In this case, the Court found that the answer was clearly no. Since the parties had lived separately for decades, the High Court upheld the divorce granted by the Family Court.
However, the Court also examined the wife’s claim for higher permanent alimony. The Family Court had awarded only ₹10 lakh, but the High Court found this amount insufficient.
The Court noted that the husband was a railway employee, was about to retire, and would receive retirement benefits. It also considered that the wife had no independent income and would need financial support in old age.
The High Court therefore enhanced the permanent alimony from ₹10 lakh to ₹40 lakh.
The husband was directed to pay this amount in four equal instalments within 12 months. The first instalment has to be paid within one month from the order.
EXPLANATORY TABLE: LAWS & SECTIONS INVOLVED
| Law / Section | Purpose | How It Applied In This Case |
| Section 19(1), Family Courts Act, 1984 | Provides the right to appeal against Family Court judgments before the High Court. | The wife filed the present First Appeal challenging the Family Court’s divorce decree. |
| Section 13(1)(ia), Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 | Divorce on the ground of cruelty. | Husband sought divorce alleging mental cruelty by the wife. |
| Section 13(1)(ib), Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 | Divorce on the ground of desertion. | Husband alleged that the wife had deserted him since 1990. |
| Section 25, Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 | Permanent alimony and maintenance after divorce. | High Court enhanced permanent alimony from ₹10 lakh to ₹40 lakh. |
| Section 24, Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 | Interim maintenance and litigation expenses during matrimonial proceedings. | Discussed while referring to Supreme Court precedents on maintenance. |
| Section 498A, Indian Penal Code | Cruelty by husband or relatives. | Wife had earlier lodged a 498A case against the husband, which was later compromised. |
| Section 494, Indian Penal Code | Marrying again during the lifetime of a spouse (bigamy). | Wife had also alleged bigamy in the earlier criminal case. |
| Sections 379 & 109, Indian Penal Code | Theft and abetment. | Included in the earlier criminal complaint filed by the wife. |
| Section 125, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 | Maintenance for wife, children and parents. | Referred to while discussing Supreme Court rulings on maintenance principles. |
CASE DETAILS
- Case Title: Wife Vs. Husband & Anr.
- Case Number: First Appeal No. 126 of 2022
- Court: High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi
- Neutral Citation: 2026:JHHC:17922-DB
- Date of Judgment: 19.06.2026
- Bench: Justice Sujit Narayan Prasad | Justice Sanjay Prasad
- Counsels:
- For Appellant: Mr. Shadab Bin Haque, Advocate, and Mr. Aryamann Relan, Advocate
- Respondent No. 1: Mrs. Ritu Kumar, Advocate, and Mr. Anjani Kumar, Advocate
KEY TAKEAWAYS
- 36 years of separation is not marriage; it is legal paperwork. The Court rightly saw that forcing reunion after decades serves no purpose.
- A husband also has the right to exit a dead marriage. Marriage cannot become a life sentence when the relationship has already collapsed.
- False or compromised matrimonial cases leave permanent damage. The husband faced 498A and other allegations, yet still had to fight for divorce years later.
- Desertion by wife is a valid ground for divorce. Courts must recognise long separation and refusal to return as real matrimonial cruelty to men.
- Alimony must not become punishment. Even while granting ₹40 lakh, the Court noted the husband also has to survive and discharge responsibilities.
This Could Change Your Case-Get FREE Legal Advice-Click Here!
Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the Indian courts and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of “ShoneeKapoor.com” or its affiliates. This article is intended for informational and educational purposes only. The content provided is not legal advice, and viewers should not act upon this information without seeking professional counsel. Viewer discretion is advised.
