Court’s Decision
The Patna High Court, comprising Chief Justice P.B. Bajanthri and Justice S.B. Pratap Singh, upheld the decree of divorce granted by the Family Court, Jehanabad, while enhancing the relief by granting ₹20,00,000 as permanent alimony to the estranged wife. The Court reaffirmed the principle that financial support post-divorce is not charity but a right ensuring dignified living, observing that:
“It is the duty of the Court to see that the wife lives with dignity and comfort and not in penury. The living need not be luxurious, but simultaneously she should not be left to live in discomfort.”
While the dissolution of marriage was maintained on the grounds of cruelty and desertion, the Court modified the order to ensure fair and adequate financial security to the wife who had been living separately for nearly two decades with her children.
Facts
The marriage between the parties was solemnized in 1996 in accordance with Hindu rites and customs. Two children—a son and a daughter—were born from the wedlock. The husband, a government servant working initially as a constable and later as a Block Development Officer, alleged that his wife had deserted him in 2006 and refused to live either at his place of posting or at the matrimonial home. He filed a divorce petition under Sections 13(1)(i-a) and (i-b) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, citing cruelty and desertion.
The wife denied all allegations, asserting that it was the husband who had deserted her and had even contracted a second marriage. She claimed that she was residing at her parents’ home with the children, dependent entirely on her aged parents, and sought maintenance of ₹10,000 per month.
The Family Court, Jehanabad, allowed the husband’s divorce petition on 23 February 2010 and directed him to pay ₹2,500 per month for the maintenance of the children, without any provision for permanent alimony to the wife.
Aggrieved, the wife filed an appeal before the High Court.
Issues
- Whether the Family Court rightly granted divorce on the grounds of cruelty and desertion.
- Whether the wife was entitled to permanent alimony and maintenance, despite living separately for long.
- Whether the High Court could interfere with the quantum of maintenance and grant permanent alimony in appeal.
Petitioner’s Arguments
The wife’s counsel argued that the Family Court had erred both in law and fact by granting divorce solely on the husband’s uncorroborated testimony. It was contended that the findings regarding cruelty and desertion were unsubstantiated and contrary to evidence.
The appellant maintained that she had never refused to live with her husband; instead, it was the respondent who had abandoned her without reasonable cause. She pointed out that the husband had re-married, while she continued to remain unmarried and was entirely dependent on her parents.
She emphasized that the maintenance of ₹4,000 per month being paid was wholly insufficient to support her and her two children, both of whom had reached adulthood. She urged the Court to award adequate permanent alimony, arguing that the Family Court had completely ignored the mandate of Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act, which empowers the court to grant maintenance and support even after the decree of divorce.
Respondent’s Arguments
The husband’s counsel argued that the wife had voluntarily deserted the matrimonial home, frequently leaving for her parental house without justification. He alleged that she maintained illicit relations with a relative, which was why she refused to live either with him or at his official quarters.
He contended that despite repeated efforts, the wife declined to return, and instead filed false criminal cases against him and his family members under the Dowry Prohibition Act. The respondent submitted that he had only sought dissolution of a marriage that had irretrievably broken down, as the couple had been living separately for nearly two decades.
While he accepted the Family Court’s decree, he contested the demand for enhanced maintenance, asserting that he was already supporting the children and had limited financial means.
Analysis of the Law
The Court examined the legal framework governing divorce, cruelty, desertion, and permanent alimony under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, particularly Sections 13 and 25.
Referring to Joydeep Majumdar v. Bharti Jaiswal Majumdar (2021) 2 RCR (Civil) 289), the Bench reiterated that mental cruelty must be such that it becomes impossible for the aggrieved spouse to continue the matrimonial relationship. The nature and gravity of conduct must render further cohabitation unreasonable.
The Court also relied on Samar Ghosh v. Jaya Ghosh (2007) 4 SCC 511, which provided an illustrative list of conduct amounting to mental cruelty, including sustained neglect, unjustifiable behavior, and long-term separation rendering the marriage beyond repair.
The judges further invoked Jagdish Singh v. Madhuri Devi (2008) 10 SCC 497, which clarified that an appellate court may interfere with a trial court’s finding only if it is perverse, unreasonable, or contrary to evidence.
Applying these principles, the Court noted that the parties had been living separately for almost 20 years, and the matrimonial bond was beyond repair. Thus, there was no justification to set aside the decree of divorce.
Precedent Analysis
- Joydeep Majumdar v. Bharti Jaiswal Majumdar (2021) – Defined the scope of mental cruelty. The High Court cited it to hold that long-term separation and hostility between spouses constitutes cruelty justifying divorce.
- Samar Ghosh v. Jaya Ghosh (2007) – Enumerated instances of mental cruelty; relied on to conclude that refusal of cohabitation and long estrangement establish mental cruelty.
- Rajnesh v. Neha (2021) 2 SCC 324 – Provided a framework for determining maintenance and permanent alimony; cited to guide the quantum of financial relief.
- Pravin Kumar Jain v. Anju Jain (2024 SCC OnLine SC 3678) – Clarified that there is no fixed formula for alimony; each case must be decided based on status, income, and lifestyle of the parties.
- Sukhdev Singh v. Sukhbir Kaur (2025 SCC OnLine SC 299) – Reiterated that grant of permanent alimony under Section 25 is discretionary, depending on the conduct of the applicant.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court observed that both parties had long ceased cohabitation, and the husband had remarried. Given this, the marriage had “broken down irretrievably.” However, the Court found that the Family Court erred in not granting permanent alimony to the wife.
Citing Rajnesh v. Neha and Vinny Parmvir Parmar v. Paramvir Parmar (2011) 13 SCC 112, the Bench held that maintenance must enable the wife to live with reasonable comfort and dignity, consistent with her standard of life during marriage.
The Court noted that the wife, who had raised her children alone for over 15 years, had no independent income and was receiving a paltry amount of ₹4,000 per month. Meanwhile, the husband, who had served in two government posts, was financially capable of supporting her.
The Court stressed that Section 25 of the Act empowers courts to grant maintenance even after the decree of divorce, ensuring financial justice for the spouse who is left vulnerable.
Taking into account the duration of marriage, status of the parties, and the husband’s income, the Court directed the husband to pay ₹20,00,000 as permanent alimony, inclusive of the ₹5 lakh already deposited as interim relief. The payment was to be made within three months, failing which it would carry 6% annual interest.
Conclusion
The Patna High Court upheld the divorce decree, holding that the marriage had irretrievably broken down and there was no possibility of reconciliation. However, to secure the financial future of the wife who had devoted her life to raising two children alone, the Court awarded ₹20 lakh as permanent alimony.
“The law must not only dissolve broken marriages but also ensure post-divorce dignity. Financial sustenance is not a gesture of compassion but a right derived from fairness and equity.”
The appeal was disposed of with directions to comply within three months.
Implications
This judgment reinforces the principle that permanent alimony is not discretionary benevolence but a statutory obligation under Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act. It also clarifies that appellate courts can modify maintenance awards to ensure equity, especially where the Family Court fails to address the wife’s financial vulnerability.
By integrating modern judicial precedents like Rajnesh v. Neha and Sukhdev Singh v. Sukhbir Kaur, the decision serves as a guiding precedent for balanced matrimonial justice, emphasizing dignity, equality, and compassion after marital breakdown.
FAQs
1. Can a divorced wife seek alimony even after the decree of divorce?
Yes. Under Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act, a spouse may apply for permanent alimony even after the decree of divorce has been passed.
2. Is long-term separation sufficient ground for divorce?
Yes. Courts consider prolonged separation as constructive evidence of cruelty and desertion, implying that the marital bond has irretrievably broken down.
3. How is the quantum of permanent alimony determined?
It depends on the status of the parties, duration of marriage, income, and conduct. Courts aim to ensure the spouse can live with dignity and not in deprivation.
