Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(Jhk) 28

HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND
Sujit Narayan Prasad, Arun Kumar Rai, JJ
Sushma Devi – Appellant
Versus
Raj Kumar Prasad – Respondent
F.A. No.324 of 2023

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Vijay Bahadur Singh
For the Respondents: Robin Kumar, Nishi Rani, Akanksha B Raje

In cases of irretrievably broken 'dead wood' marriages, courts may grant divorce for practical ends. Permanent alimony and child maintenance must be determined based on the payor's financial capacity, the recipient's customary standard of living, and the reasonable needs of the dependents without resorting to rigid mathematical formulas.

Headnote:(A) Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 - Section 13(1)(i-a) - Divorce on grounds of cruelty - Marriage where relations have become lifeless and devoid of emotional or practical value for a prolonged period may be treated as a 'dead wood marriage' - Courts, in a pragmatic manner, may grant divorce recognizing that forcing such a relationship prolongs suffering. (Paras 23, 25, 26)

(B) Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 - Section 25 - Permanent Alimony - Object is to prevent destitution - No fixed arithmetic formula exists - Factors include status, social and financial needs, capacity of the spouse to pay, and inflationary costs - Power to grant permanent alimony is available even subsequent to the decree. (Paras 28, 30, 32, 33, 34)

(C) Welfare of child - Regardless of the dissolution of marriage, the father remains duty-bound to maintain his dependent children and ensure their financial stability for education and upbringing. (Paras 41, 43, 45)

Facts of the case:
The appellant-wife challenged a judgment and decree dissolving her marriage with the respondent-husband on the ground of cruelty. During the appellate proceedings, it was submitted that the respondent had entered into a second marriage and had a child from that union, rendering the original marital relationship non-functional. The court was tasked with determining the issue of maintenance and alimony for the wife and the daughter born from the first wedlock, considering the respondent's salary and familial obligations.

Findings of Court:
The court held that where a marriage has irretrievably reached a' dead wood' status, continuing the legal bond serves no purpose. Regarding alimony, the court emphasized that the quantum must be realistic, ensuring the wife lives with reasonable comfort while not being oppressive to the husband, balanced against his financial capacity, obligations towards other dependents, and the welfare of the minor child.

Issues: Whether the dissolution of marriage was justifiable in the absence of hope for reconciliation and what constitutes a just and reasonable quantum of permanent alimony and child maintenance given the financial circumstances of the parties.

Ratio Decidendi: When a marriage is irretrievably broken and is effectively 'dead', forcing its continuance is counter-productive; maintenance for a spouse and dependent child, while not governed by a rigid formula, must be determined based on the payor's financial status, the reasonable living standards of the dependents, and the necessity to avoid destitution, while ensuring the welfare of minor children remains a priority.

Result: Appeal disposed of; marriage dissolution affirmed; maintenance and alimony amounts fixed with a provision for biennial enhancement.

Table of Content
1. divorce granted on grounds of cruelty after ex-parte proceedings. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18)
2. irretrievable breakdown of marriage justifies affirming dissolution of marriage. (Para 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26)
3. principles for determining quantum of permanent alimony and maintenance. (Para 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35)
4. parental obligation to maintain children during divorce proceedings. (Para 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45)
5. application of precedent to determine standard of living-based maintenance. (Para 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 53 , 54 , 55 , 56 , 57 , 58)
6. court order fixing monthly maintenance for wife and daughter. (Para 59 , 60 , 61 , 62 , 63 , 64 , 65 , 66)

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 sta

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(Jhk) 28

HIGH COURT OF JHARKHANDSujit Narayan Prasad, Arun Kumar Rai, JJSushma Devi – AppellantVersusRaj Kumar Prasad – RespondentF.A. No.324 of 2023

Cases Referred (6)

HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND
Sujit Narayan Prasad, Arun Kumar Rai, JJ
Sushma Devi – Appellant
Versus
Raj Kumar Prasad – Respondent
F.A. No.324 of 2023