Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Jhk) 595

2026:JHHC:13198
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD, SANJAY PRASAD, JJ.
Rahul Kumar, s/o Late Rambhaju Saw – Appellant
Versus
Deepika Gupta, w/o Rahul Kumar, D/o Sri Arun Kumar Gupta – Respondent
F.A. No. 233 of 2025
Decided on : 04-05-2026
Advocates Appeared :
For the Appellant : Md. Shadab Ansari, Advocate
For the Respondent : Mr. Fahad Allam, Advocate Md. Shadab Alam, Advocate Mr. S. Tabej, Advocate

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Md. Shadab Ansari
For the Respondents: Fahad Allam, Md. Shadab Alam, S. Tabej

Cruelty as a ground for divorce is determined by the conduct and its impact on the matrimonial relationship. Mere employment of a spouse does not per se disentitle them to permanent alimony, as the court must consider maintaining a standard of living consistent with that enjoyed during marriage.

Headnote:(A) Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 - Sections 13(1)(i-a) and 25 - Divorce on grounds of cruelty - Permanent alimony - Cruelty in the context of matrimonial law has no fixed definition and is dependent on the conduct in relation to matrimonial obligations, affecting a spouse mentally or physically - Determination depends on the economic and social conditions, culture, and human values of the parties. (Paras 40, 41, 42, 48)

(B) Appellate Review - Findings of fact - Concept of 'perversity' - A finding is considered perverse only if it ignores or excludes relevant material, adopts irrelevant considerations, or defies logic such that no reasonable person would arrive at it - Appellate courts should not substitute their own view if the lower court's findings are supported by evidence. (Para 38)

(C) Maintenance and Alimony - Financial independence of a spouse - Mere employment or capacity to earn does not automatically disqualify a spouse from receiving permanent alimony - Maintenance amount must enable the spouse to maintain a lifestyle commensurate with their former status in the matrimonial home. (Paras 68-71)

Facts of the case:
The appellant challenged a trial court decree granting a divorce based on cruelty. The respondent asserted that she was subjected to physical violence, mental torture, dowry demands, and unchaste behavior by the appellant, which rendered living together unbearable. The appellant denied these allegations, argued that the lower court findings were perverse, and contended that the respondent's employment rendered the alimony award unjustified.

Findings of Court:
The court found the evidence of cruelty by the appellant to be consistent and grave. The breakdown of the matrimonial bond was corroborated by failed attempts at reconciliation and ongoing accusations. Regarding alimony, the court concluded that the respondent's salary did not bar her claim, as the amount awarded was intended to sustain a lifestyle comparable to her matrimonial status.

Issues: Whether the dissolution of marriage on the grounds of cruelty was based on perverse findings of fact and whether the award of permanent alimony was justified despite the respondent's employment.

Ratio Decidendi: Cruelty is a question of fact and degree determined by the conduct and its impact on the aggrieved spouse. Absent illegality or perversity in the findings, the court will not disturb the decree of divorce. Furthermore, a spouse's independent income is only one factor; it does not negate the entitlement to alimony if the amount is necessary to sustain a reasonable standard of living in accordance with the marital lifestyle.

Result: Appeal dismissed.

Table of Content
1. summary of factual matrix and procedural history. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19)
2. contentions regarding perversity and cruelty in marriage. (Para 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28)
3. criteria and evidence required to establish legal cruelty. (Para 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 53 , 54 , 55 , 56 , 57)
4. factors for determining permanent alimony and maintenance. (Para 58 , 59 , 60 , 61 , 62 , 63 , 64 , 65 , 66 , 67 , 68 , 69 , 70 , 71 , 72)
5. final validation of divorce decree and dismissal of appeal. (Para 73 , 74 , 75)

JUDGMENT :

Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.

1. The instant appeal under Section 19(1) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 is directed against the order/judgment dated 04.04.2025 and decree signed on 17.04.2025 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family court, Dhanbad in Original Suit No. 738 of 2024, whereby and whereunder, the learned court has allowed the suit in the light of Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 by dissolving the marriage solemnized in between the parties with a direction upon the appellant/defendant to pay a sum of Rs.6 lakh to the respondent/plaintiff as alimony.

Factual Matrix

2. The brief facts of the case as per the original matrimonial suit needs to be referred herein which is as under.

3. The respondent/plaintiff Deepika Gupta has filed the suit by stating therein that she was married to the appellant/defendant Rahul Kumar, as per Hindu Rites and Customs on 23.04.2021. At the time of her marriage, her parents paid a sum of Rs. 8 lacs in cash and jewellery, furniture and house hold articles in kind of Rs. 10 lacs to the appellant/defendant and his family members.

4. After marriage, she went to her Sasural and lived happily only for a week, after which, the appellant/defendant and his family members treated her like a maid servant and subjected her to mental and physical cruelty. The appellant/defendant on the instigation of his sisters Soni Devi and Putul Devi, advanced a demand of four-wheeler and on 25.05.2021 and on 28.07.2021 they confined her inside a room, reviled her with abusive languages and assaulted her, because on that day she had witnessed the appellant/defendant in compromising position with his Bhabhi Anita Devi and she had objected to their illicit relation.

5. She has further asserted that when she was finally ousted from her matrimonial house, she started teaching in a private school, but due to threatening of the appellant/defendant, she left going to school and filed C.P. Case No. 7375/2022 in the court of learned JMFC, Dhanbad.

6. In the said case, the appellant/defendant has been granted bail on 25.08.2023 on the ground of compromise, wherein, the appellant/defendant had agreed not to abuse and assault her in the days to come. He had also undertaken not to send any filthy message in WhatsApp of his plaintiff/wife and had also agreed to give consent to divorce each other by mutual consent and in this way on the same day she went to her Sasural, but again, the appellant/defendant started torturing her but anyhow she lived there for a period of six months, during which she conceived but due to merciless assault on her, pregnancy of plaintiff/wife was terminated and finally, the appellant/defendant banished her from his house.

7. She has further asserted that she was brutally assaulted on 26.11.2021 also by the appellant/defendant in Bayore Hotel in Deoghar. She has also asserted that the appellant/defendant is a cruel man, habitual drunker and a money -lender. He has been of the habit of going out of the house in the morning and to come back at 12:00 AM in the night and in the night also he sleeps with his Bhabhi Anita Devi. She has lastly asserted that there is no chance of their reunion, because, the appellant/defendant is a cruel man, so she cannot live happily with him anymore.

8. On the basis of

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Jhk) 595

Cruelty as a ground for divorce is determined by the conduct and its impact on the matrimonial relationship. Mere employment of a spouse does not per se disentitle them to permanent alimony, as the court must consider maintaining a standard of living consistent with that enjoyed during marriage.

Cases Referred (14)