Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
P. B. Bajanthri, CJ., S. B. Pd. Singh, J.
Kumari Neelam Devi, wife of Sri Satish Kumar - Appellant
Versus
Satish Kumar, son of Sri Ram Pravesh Singh - Respondent
Miscellaneous Appeal No.248 of 2010
Decided On : 14-10-2025
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 – Sections 13(1)(i-a)(i-b) and 25 – Divorce – Permanent alimony – Appellant and respondent are living separately for about 20 years – Appellant-wife is residing along with both of her children whereas respondent husband has re-married and living along with his wife and three children – There is long separation between parties and matrimonial bond is virtually beyond repair – Both parties are no longer interested to continue matrimonial relationship with each other and both are ready for dissolution of marriage – Judgment and decree passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, allowing dissolution of marriage by decree of divorce, hereby upheld – While granting decree of divorce, Family court has not granted anything to appellant-wife towards Permanent Alimony – Generally, marriages that lasts more than 10 years are entitled to be granted lifetime alimony – Conduct of party seeking relief is also relevant – Wife can initiate proceedings for grant of permanent alimony even after decree of divorce – Court does not become functus officio with passing of decree and continues to have jurisdiction to award alimony even thereafter – It is duty of Court to see that wife lives with dignity and comfort and not in penury – Permanent Alimony of Rs. 20,00,000/- awarded to appellant-wife. (Paras 19, 21, 22, 23, 27, 28, 29, 32 and 37)
Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points summarized:
The marriage was solemnized in 1996 and has resulted in two children, with a third child having died in the womb (!) (!) .
The parties have been living separately for approximately 20 years, with the wife residing with her children and the husband having remarried and living with his new wife and children (!) .
The husband filed for divorce on grounds of cruelty and desertion, alleging that the wife was of questionable character, refused to live with him, and had illicit relationships (!) (!) (!) .
The wife denied the allegations, claimed she was dependent on her parents, and sought maintenance for herself and her children, asserting that the husband had remarried and was paying minimal maintenance (!) (!) .
The Family Court allowed the divorce petition, citing the long separation and the irreparable breakdown of the marriage, but did not grant permanent alimony to the wife at that time (!) (!) (!) .
The court emphasized that in marriages lasting more than 10 years, the wife is generally entitled to lifetime alimony, and that the wife can initiate proceedings for permanent alimony even after divorce (!) (!) .
The court considered the conduct of the parties, the duration of separation, and the financial circumstances in determining alimony, ultimately awarding Rs. 20,00,000/- as permanent alimony to the wife, payable within three months, with interest if delayed (!) .
The court noted that the amount of alimony should allow the wife to live with dignity and comfort, considering her social and financial status, but not in luxury or penury (!) (!) .
The court also directed the husband to pay Rs. 5 lakhs during the pendency of the appeal to demonstrate his bona fide intentions (!) .
The appeal was disposed of with the directions to pay the awarded alimony amount, and no order as to costs was made (!) .
Please let me know if you'd like a more detailed analysis or assistance with specific legal questions related to this case.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. nature of the marriage and factual background (Para 2 , 4 , 5 , 11) |
| 2. arguments presented by parties regarding divorce (Para 12 , 13) |
| 3. definition and criteria for mental cruelty (Para 16 , 17 , 24 , 25 , 26) |
| 4. significance of long-term separation in divorce cases (Para 19 , 21 , 22) |
| 5. assessment of permanent alimony (Para 30 , 31 , 33 , 37) |
JUDGMENT :
S. B. PD. SINGH, J.
Heard the parties.
2. The appellant-wife (Kumari Neelam Devi) has come up in this appeal against judgment and decree dated 23.02.2010 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Jehanabad in Matrimonial Case No. 21 of 2009, whereby the petition filed by the respondent-husband (Satish Kumar) under Sections 13(1)(i-a)(i-b) of the HINDU MARRIAGE ACT , 1955 (in short 'the 1955 Act') seeking dissolution of marriage by a decree of divorce, has been allowed and divorce stands granted. However, an amount of Rs. 2500/- per month was directed to be paid by the respondent-husband to the appellant-wife for maintenance of her children.
3. Succinctly, the marriage of appellant- Kumari Neelam Devi was solemnized with respondent-Satish Kumar in the year 1996 as per Hindu rites and ceremonies. The marriage was duly consummated; and one son and one daughter was born out of the wedlock. Third child had died in appellant’s womb.
4. The pleaded case of the respondent-husband in his petition filed before the Family Court is that the marriage of the respondent-husband with the appellant-wife was solemnized in the year 1996. The marriage was consummated and out of the wedlock, one female-child and one male-child were born. The respondent-husband was having a joint family consisting old parents and a brother who was in service and living at Rurkhi. The respondent- husband was working as a Constable at Ranchi and he insisted his wife (appellant) to live with him but she was adamant to live at her parents’ house. The respondent- husband claims that his wife (appellant) is a woman of questionable character and she herself does not want to live with him and she deserted the respondent-husband since 2006. The respondent-husband made every efforts to bring the appellant-wife back to her matrimonial house but all his efforts went in vein. Ultimately, finding no other option, the respondent-husband has filed the present divorce petition seeking dissolution of marriage by a decree of divorce.
5. In response to the notices/summons issued to the appellant-wife, she has appeared and filed her written statement. In her written statement, the appellant-wife has denied all the allegations as levelled by the respondent- husband. She denied this fact that she does not want to live with her husband at his place of posting or she does not want to live with his parents. Though she admits to have filed a criminal case against the respondent-husband and other in-laws family members. The appellant-wife during hearing of the Maintenance Case No. 11 of 2009 has suspected that respondent-husband might have performed second marriage and he may oust the appellant-wife and her children from her matrimonial house. The appellant-wife has also claimed for a maintenance of Rs. 10,000/- per month for herself and the maintenance of her two children as she has been residing at her parents’ house and her parents have also no source of income to garnish the needs and requirements of the appellant and her children. 6. In Maintenance Case No. 11 of 2009, the respondent-husband has filed his show-cause claiming that the present maintenance case was filed after filing of the divorce petition. The respondent further submitted that appellant herself does not want to live with the respondent as she has illicit relationship with a male member of her family relation. The respondent-husband is ready to bear the expenses incurred on the education of his children, if they are admitted in the residential school at Jehanabad, Gaya and Patna. The respondent-husband is in government service and without divorcing his
The court upheld the divorce as mutual consent was reflected in prolonged separation, emphasizing the need for permanent alimony considering the parties' financial circumstances.
The refusal to cohabit and unilateral abandonment constitute grounds for divorce under the Hindu Marriage Act, qualifying as mental cruelty.
Mental cruelty justifies divorce; unilateral refusal of cohabitation and long-term separation erode marital obligations under Hindu Marriage Act.
(1) Divorce – Irretrievable breakdown of marriage may not be a ground for dissolution of marriage, under Hindu Marriage Act, but it is a ground for dissolution of marriage under Section 13(1)(1a) of ....
Divorce is granted based on the irretrievable breakdown of marriage, and permanent alimony is awarded factoring in the financial capacities of the parties.
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....
Cruelty, either mental or physical, can justify a decree of divorce under the Hindu Marriage Act if it causes suffering that prevents a spouse from continuing together.
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....
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.
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
