IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD, ARUN KUMAR RAI, JJ.
Sushma Devi - Appellant
Versus
Raj Kumar Prasad - Respondent
F.A. No.324 of 2023
Decided On : 07-01-2026
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. grounds for dissolution of marriage under hindu marriage act. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 2. appeal against family court's divorce decree. (Para 18 , 19 , 20 , 21) |
| 3. court's analysis of 'dead wood marriage' concept. (Para 23 , 24 , 25 , 26) |
| 4. provisions for permanent alimony under section 25. (Para 27 , 28 , 29 , 30) |
| 5. factors determining quantum of alimony. (Para 31 , 32 , 33 , 34) |
| 6. consideration for child support in alimony. (Para 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39) |
| 7. assessment of reasonable alimony based on husband's income. (Para 52 , 53 , 54 , 55 , 56) |
| 8. final order on maintenance and alimony. (Para 59 , 60 , 61 , 62 , 63 , 64 , 65) |
JUDGMENT :
Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.
Prayer:
1. The instant appeal has been filed challenging the legality and propriety of impugned judgment passed on 18.04.2023 and decree signed on 28.04.2023 by learned Additional Principal Judge, Additional Family Court No.II, Dhanbad whereby and whereunder the Original Suit No. 839 of 2021 filed by the petitioner-husband (respondent herein) under Section 13(1), (i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for a decree of divorce has been allowed.
Factual Matrix
2. The brief facts of the case of the petitioner/husband (respondent herein) as narrated before the learned Family Court, is that the marriage of the petitioner-husband was solemnized with the respondent (appellant herein) on 23.11.2008 at Rohtas according to Hindu rites and after marriage, both lived together as husband and wife at Sindri, Dhanbad. Out of the said wedlock, the couple was blessed with a female child namely Palak Kumari, aged about 10 years.
3. It has been stated that earlier, petitioner-husband has filed a suit against respondent for dissolution of their marriage in Dhanbad Court which was dismissed.
4. It has further stated that after few years of marriage, behavior of the respondent towards the petitioner and his family member was very much reluctant and intemperate as well. Her derogatory and ugly remarks for the petitioner was noticed to be unbearable using abusive words and foul language against her husband and in-laws were shameful and surprising.
5. It has further been stated that respondent also started trouble and making nuisance in the conjugal life. The husband-petitioner tried his level best to persuade the respondent but in vain.
6. It has been stated that on 16.09.2014 in the night, respondent left her matrimonial home alongwith her parents and daughter and went to her Maika with her belongings without the knowledge and consent of the petitioner/husband (respondent herein).
7. It has also been stated that respondent-wife has filed several cases against the petitioner-husband bearing C.P Case No.227/2016 in Dehari Dist. Rohtas, a Maintenance Case in Sasaram (Bihar) and also Baliapur P.S Case No. 127/2017 at Dhanbad.
8. According to plaint, cause of action for the present suit arose on dated 23.11.2008 when the marriage of the petitioner with the respondent was performed, it also arose on several occasions including on 16.09.2014 when the respondent behaved and committed cruelty upon them.
9. After appearance of the defendant-wife, the matter of the parties of the present proceeding has been referred to Mediation Center Dhanbad for reconciliation but the same failed.
10. In the aforesaid circumstances as alleged by the appellant, an application under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 had been preferred by him for a decree of divorce before the Court of learned Additional Principal Judge, Additional Family Court No.II, Dhanbad numbered as the Original Suit No. 839 of 2021.
11. The case was admitted for hearing and upon notice the respondent wife appeared in this case.
12. Sufficient opportunity was given to the respondent- wife to file written statement and lastly on dated 24.01.2023 respondent (appellant herein) was debarred from filing the written statement.
13. The learned Family Judge has taken into consideration the pleading made by the petiti
Durga Prasanna Tripathy v. Arundhati Tripathy
Sujata Uday Patil v. Uday Madhukar Patil
Kalyan Dey Chowdhury v. Rita Dey Chowdhury Nee Nandy
A marriage may be dissolved when irretrievable breakdown is evident, especially where cruelty is established, and financial obligations for maintenance must be assessed equitably.
Prolonged separation over 20 years establishes irretrievable breakdown (dead wood marriage), warranting divorce; permanent alimony of Rs.50 lakhs fixed balancing husband's finances and wife's/daughte....
Permanent alimony quantum under Section 25 fixed without formula, balancing husband's current/future income/capacity against wife's/child's needs, status, inflation, life expectancy; prior payments a....
The court held that the existence of sufficient grounds for divorce must be demonstrated, alongside appropriate permanent alimony reflecting the spouse's standard of living prior to separation.
Court upheld divorce on cruelty/desertion/non-consummation; awarded Rs.35 lakhs permanent alimony under S.25 HMA factoring wife's dependency, husband's family business/assets, remarriage, inflation, ....
The court held that a marriage can be annulled under Section 12(1)(C) of the Hindu Marriage Act if obtained through fraud, particularly when one spouse conceals crucial facts such as prior relationsh....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.