Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD, ARUN KUMAR RAI, JJ.
Gopal Maity, son of late Satendra Nath Maity – Petitioner
Versus
Pratima Maity, wife of Gopal Maity, Daughter of Tinkori Maity – Respondents
First Appeal No.125 of 2025
Decided On : 12-03-2026
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. appeal against dismissal of divorce on cruelty, desertion. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 2. husband claims cruelty, desertion proven by evidence. (Para 8 , 9) |
| 3. wife denies cruelty, desertion; separation admitted. (Para 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 4. court examines affidavits, assets, daughter's needs. (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19) |
| 5. trial evidence shows wife's false cases, separation. (Para 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30) |
| 6. desertion requires separation intent without consent. (Para 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35) |
| 7. long separation deems marriage irretrievably broken. (Para 36 , 37 , 38 , 39) |
| 8. alimony quantum based on parties' status, needs. (Para 40 , 41 , 42 , 43) |
| 9. section 25 hma enables permanent alimony provision. (Para 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 53 , 54 , 55) |
| 10. alimony reflects status, income; periodic enhancement. (Para 56 , 57 , 58 , 59 , 60 , 61 , 62 , 63 , 64 , 65) |
| 11. husband's finances justify substantial alimony award. (Para 66 , 67 , 68 , 69 , 70 , 71 , 72) |
| 12. divorce granted subject to rs.50 lakhs alimony. (Para 73 , 74 , 75 , 76 , 77 , 78 , 79 , 80) |
JUDGMENT :
Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.
1. The instant appeal under section 19(1) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 is directed against ex-parte judgment dated 29.05.2024 and the decree signed on 03.06.2024 passed in Original Suit No.615 of 2022 by the learned Additional Principal Judge, Additional Family Court No.2, East Singhbhum at Jamshedpur, (in short, Family Judge) whereby and whereunder the petition filed under section 13 (1) (i-a) (i-b) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 by the appellant-husband against the respondent-wife, has been dismissed.
Factual Matrix
2. The brief facts of the case as pleaded in the plaint having been recorded by the learned Family Judge, needs to be referred herein as:
(i) The petitioner and the respondent are the legally married couple. Their marriage was duly solemnized according to strict principle of Hindu rites and customs on 28.04.1998 at the parental house of the respondent at Village Chakulia within P.S Chakulia District Singhbhum East.
(ii) The said marriage was negotiated one and was duly solemnized in presence of both the common wishers, friends and relatives of both the parties under a peaceful and cordial environment and as per the customs prevailing in their society.
(iii) The petitioner and the respondent started living together at the house of the petitioner and their marriage has been duly consummated and from the said wedlock the couple has been blessed with a female child namely Purnima Maity on 22.12.1999.
(iv) It is stated that unfortunately the cordial relationship between the parties as husband and wife could not continue for any longer period, due to vital difference in their opinion, mind and status of living, and also behaviour, which could not be settled amicably.
(v) The respondent due to her peevish nature gradually became a termagant lady and in spite of several and strenuous efforts made by the petitioner even at the intervention of their common relatives, the aforesaid evil nature of the respondent could not be rectified, rather the matter went up to its extreme and the respondent flatly refused to live in the house of the petitioner with the old ailing parents of the petitioner.
(vi) This fact was not accepted by the petitioner. He never became ready to leave his old parents alone and the caused serious type of annoyance in the mind of the respondent.
(vii) The respondent started creating dispute in the house and gradually she was regularly quarreling with the petitioner in very small matters. Ultimately, after the birth of the said female child, she along with her minor child left for her parental house during the month of December, 1999 and since then she is continuously living at her parental house.
(viii) It is stated that all efforts made by the petitioner to bring back the respondent went in vain as all the time she flatly refused to come back to his life for the reaso
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.
A marriage may be dissolved when irretrievable breakdown is evident, especially where cruelty is established, and financial obligations for maintenance must be assessed equitably.
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....
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, ....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
