Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(Jhk) 661

HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND
Sujit Narayan Prasad, Arun Kumar Rai, JJ
Gopal Maity – Appellant
Versus
Pratima Maity – Respondent
First Appeal No.125 of 2025

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Vikash Kumar
For the Respondents: Jitendra Nath Upadhyay, Anurag Kashyap, Kumar Harsh, Tejaswa Mohanta

In cases of irretrievable breakdown of marriage, courts may grant divorce to end a lifeless relationship. When awarding permanent alimony, there is no fixed arithmetic formula; the amount must balance the payer's financial capacity with the recipient's need for reasonable comfort and maintenance of their previous standard of living.

Headnote:(A) Family Courts Act, 1984 - Section 19(1) - Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 - Sections 13(1)(i-a) and 13(1)(i-b) - Divorce - Cruelty and Desertion - Where marriage has irretrievably broken down, rendering the relationship a "dead wood" with no emotional or practical value, the Court may grant a divorce to avoid prolonging individual suffering. (Paras 35, 36)

(B) Permanent Alimony - Section 25, Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 - Quantum calculation - No arithmetic formula exists; amount depends on status, social needs, financial capacity of the spouse, and ensuring the dependent is not reduced to destitution or vagrancy. (Paras 44, 53, 55, 71)

Facts of the case:
Parties married and lived together for a short period before separating, with almost two decades of living apart. The marriage previously involved multiple litigations including criminal proceedings under the Dowry Prohibition Act and maintenance claims. The husband sought divorce citing cruelty and desertion, but the trial court dismissed the suit. In appeal, noting the total breakdown of the marital relationship and the parties' mutual lack of interest in cohabitation, the court explored a settlement via permanent alimony.

Findings of Court:
The court determined that forcing a reunion in a "dead wood" marriage is impractical. Considering the husband's financial disclosures after retirement and the wife's need to support herself and their child to maintain their accustomed standard of living, the court deemed a lump sum payment necessary for their future stability.

Issues: The main issues were whether grounds for divorce through cruelty and desertion were established and the quantum of permanent alimony required to maintain the dependent spouse and child.

Ratio Decidendi: When a marriage has become lifeless and reconciliation is impossible, the Court should prioritize pragmatic solutions over compelling cohabitation. The granting of permanent alimony is an enabling provision intended to prevent destitution, requiring a balance between the payer's capacity and the recipient's need to sustain their prior standard of living.

Result: Appeal allowed. The judgment and decree of the lower court are quashed and set aside; divorce granted subject to final payment of permanent alimony.

Table of Content
1. procedural history and factual background leading to the divorce appeal. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7)
2. arguments regarding the merits of the divorce suit and allegations of cruelty. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12)
3. assessment of evidence and confirmation of separate living conditions. (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30)
4. principle of 'dead wood' marriage due to long-term separation. (Para 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39)
5. framework for determining permanent alimony under section 25, hma. (Para 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 53 , 54 , 55 , 56 , 57 , 58 , 59 , 60 , 61 , 62 , 63 , 64 , 65)
6. final settlement and court order regarding permanent alimony. (Para 66 , 67 , 68 , 69 , 70 , 71 , 72 , 73 , 74 , 75 , 76 , 77 , 78 , 79 , 80)

C.A.V on 12.02.2026 Pronounced on 12/03/2026 Per 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 reasons best known to her.

(ix) In the year 2006, the respondent came to the house of the petitioner and she lived there only for four months. The behaviour of the respondent during her stay in her matrimonial house was extremely crue

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(Jhk) 661

HIGH COURT OF JHARKHANDSujit Narayan Prasad, Arun Kumar Rai, JJGopal Maity – AppellantVersusPratima Maity – RespondentFirst Appeal No.125 of 2025

Cases Referred (6)

HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND
Sujit Narayan Prasad, Arun Kumar Rai, JJ
Gopal Maity – Appellant
Versus
Pratima Maity – Respondent
First Appeal No.125 of 2025