Court’s Decision
The Patna High Court set aside the Family Court’s judgment that had dismissed the husband’s divorce petition and dissolved the marriage solemnized in 2010 under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. Holding that the marriage had “irretrievably broken down,” the Court observed that “forcing them to continue their matrimonial relationship will be an abuse of the process of law.”
The Bench directed the husband, a Merchant Navy officer, to pay ₹90,00,000 as permanent alimony to the wife within six months, failing which the amount would carry 6% simple interest per annum.
Facts
The marriage between the parties was solemnized on 2 December 2010 in Muzaffarpur according to Hindu rites. It was consummated, but no child was born from the wedlock. The husband, employed in the Merchant Navy, alleged that the wife displayed abusive behaviour, refused cohabitation, and left her matrimonial home on 28 January 2011 without intimation. Despite several reconciliatory efforts, including panchayats, she allegedly refused to return.
The husband contended that she lived separately for more than a decade, depriving him of conjugal companionship and causing severe mental agony. Accordingly, he filed a divorce petition under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act on grounds of cruelty and desertion.
The wife, however, countered that she was subjected to physical and mental cruelty by her in-laws while her husband was away at sea. She alleged dowry harassment and claimed she was forced to sell her flat in Ghaziabad to meet her in-laws’ demands. According to her, she was ultimately driven out of the matrimonial home and denied access even when her husband returned. She also alleged that her husband had developed an extra-marital relationship and failed to support her financially despite earning around ₹1 crore annually.
After trial, the Family Court dismissed the husband’s divorce petition, finding that cruelty and desertion were not proved. The husband appealed to the High Court.
Issues
- Whether the Family Court erred in rejecting the husband’s petition for divorce on the ground of cruelty and desertion under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act.
- Whether the circumstances justified the dissolution of marriage on the ground of irretrievable breakdown.
- What should be the appropriate quantum of permanent alimony payable to the wife.
Petitioner’s Arguments
The appellant-husband contended that his wife willfully abandoned the matrimonial home within two months of marriage, refused all attempts at reconciliation, and lived separately for over a decade. He asserted that her conduct caused him immense mental suffering amounting to cruelty. The husband further stated that the wife had initiated multiple criminal proceedings, including a domestic violence case and a dowry harassment complaint, as acts of vengeance.
He highlighted his consistent compliance with the Family Court’s interim maintenance order of ₹10,000 per month and submitted that all reconciliation efforts through the Mediation Centre and before the Court had failed due to the wife’s non-cooperation. He expressed readiness to pay ₹50 lakh as one-time permanent alimony.
Respondent’s Arguments
The wife opposed the appeal, maintaining that she was the victim of continuous abuse and financial extortion. She alleged that her in-laws and husband forced her to sell her flat in Ghaziabad and later expelled her once the funds were exhausted. The husband, she said, supported his family’s cruelty and neglected his marital responsibilities.
She further argued that the proposed amount of ₹50 lakh was insufficient considering the husband’s annual income of nearly ₹1 crore and her complete dependence on aged parents. The wife expressed willingness for mutual divorce only if the husband agreed to pay ₹90 lakh as permanent alimony.
Analysis of the Law
The Court extensively discussed Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 concerning permanent alimony and maintenance. It reiterated that under this provision, the Court retains jurisdiction to grant maintenance even after passing a decree of divorce, as the Court does not become functus officio.
Referring to Rajnesh v. Neha (2021) 2 SCC 324, the Bench noted that the Supreme Court laid down detailed parameters for assessing maintenance, including financial status, needs of the dependent spouse, standard of living, and conduct of the parties.
Further reliance was placed on Kiran Jyot Maini v. Anish Pramod Patel (2024 SCC OnLine SC 1724) and Pravin Kumar Jain v. Anju Jain (2024 SCC OnLine SC 3678), which emphasized that there can be no rigid formula for determining maintenance and that each case must be judged on its own facts.
The Court observed that the purpose of permanent alimony is to ensure the dependent spouse’s dignity and comfort, not luxury, and that equitable considerations, including the conduct of both parties, must guide the Court’s discretion.
Precedent Analysis
- Rajnesh v. Neha (2021) 2 SCC 324 – Laid down the comprehensive framework for determining maintenance, directing parties to disclose assets and liabilities through affidavits. The Patna High Court relied on this to direct both spouses to submit financial statements.
- Kiran Jyot Maini v. Anish Pramod Patel (2024 SCC OnLine SC 1724) – Reiterated Rajnesh and stressed holistic evaluation of circumstances in fixing alimony.
- Pravin Kumar Jain v. Anju Jain (2024 SCC OnLine SC 3678) – Clarified that maintenance depends on multiple factors such as the parties’ income, social status, and lifestyle during marriage; the High Court adopted these factors to arrive at ₹90 lakh.
- Sukhdev Singh v. Sukhbir Kaur (2025 SCC OnLine SC 299) – Held that the grant of maintenance is discretionary and may be refused if the applicant’s conduct is inequitable. The Court cited this to underline that equitable considerations must guide the award.
- Vinny Parmvir Parmar v. Paramvir Parmar (2011) 13 SCC 112 – Stated that alimony should enable the spouse to live in reasonable comfort without impoverishing the paying party; this principle shaped the quantum fixed.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court noted that both parties had been living separately for over a decade, and all mediation attempts had failed. The relationship, in its view, was beyond repair. Citing “irretrievable breakdown of marriage” as a compelling circumstance, the Bench emphasized that continuing the marriage would “serve no purpose but prolong the agony of both.”
It observed that while cruelty and desertion may not have been conclusively proved before the Family Court, the totality of facts demonstrated complete emotional detachment and breakdown of marital ties.
In determining alimony, the Court considered the husband’s monthly income (₹5–6 lakh), absence of children, and the wife’s dependence on her aged parents. Taking note of the Supreme Court precedents and the duration of marriage, it deemed ₹90 lakh as a fair and reasonable amount of permanent alimony. The Court clarified that no arithmetic formula could be applied and that the objective was to ensure the wife lived with dignity, not luxury.
Conclusion
The Patna High Court dissolved the marriage between the parties under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act on the ground of irretrievable breakdown, observing:
“Forcing estranged spouses to continue their matrimonial relationship will be an abuse of process of law.”
The husband was directed to pay ₹90 lakh as permanent alimony within six months, failing which it would carry 6% interest per annum. The Court also noted that the wife retained the right to seek additional relief under Section 25 before the competent court if necessary.
All pending interlocutory applications were disposed of.
Implications
This judgment reinforces the evolving judicial recognition of irretrievable breakdown of marriage as a valid ground for divorce, even in the absence of explicit statutory provision. It also reiterates the Supreme Court’s framework in Rajnesh v. Neha mandating disclosure of assets and balancing equitable considerations in awarding alimony.
The decision underscores that matrimonial bonds cannot be preserved by compulsion when both spouses have irreversibly severed emotional and physical ties, and that permanent alimony must ensure dignity and fairness based on realistic assessment of the parties’ means.
FAQs
1. Can a High Court grant divorce on the ground of irretrievable breakdown even though it’s not expressly provided in law?
Yes. Although not a statutory ground under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, courts have increasingly recognized irretrievable breakdown as a valid basis for divorce when the marriage has completely failed and continuation would serve no purpose.
2. How do courts determine the amount of permanent alimony?
Courts consider various factors such as income and property of both parties, standard of living during marriage, duration of marriage, conduct of the parties, and their social status. These parameters were laid down in Rajnesh v. Neha (2021) and reiterated in subsequent judgments.
3. Can the wife seek further maintenance after receiving permanent alimony?
Yes. Under Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act, the court retains jurisdiction even after granting divorce. The wife may apply for modification or additional relief if circumstances change.