The Jharkhand High Court upheld a divorce decree after observing that a 36-year separation had turned the marriage into a “dead wood marriage.” While ending the decades-long relationship, the Court increased permanent alimony for the wife from Rs 10 lakh to Rs 40 lakh.
A Division Bench of the High Court of Jharkhand, comprising Justice Sujit Narayan Prasad and Justice Sanjay Prasad, upheld a decree of divorce ending a marriage that had lasted for decades. The Court found that the long separation estimated at 36 years had rendered the matrimonial relationship into a “dead wood marriage.” While confirming the dissolution, the High Court substantially enhanced the amount of permanent alimony payable to the wife. Instead of the Rs 10 lakh awarded by the Family Court, the husband was ordered to pay Rs 40 lakh as a one-time lump-sum payment.
Background of the Case
The appellant-wife and the respondent-husband were married on May 29, 1984, following Hindu rites and customs. After their marriage, the couple lived together and had a daughter. As per the judgment’s factual record, they last stayed together in 1990.
The husband argued that from the beginning of their matrimonial life, the wife was not willing to live in a village environment and would repeatedly return to her parental home without his consent. In 1990, she allegedly left the matrimonial home permanently along with their minor daughter. The husband and his family claimed they tried to bring her back, but she did not agree to return.
In 1992, the wife filed a criminal case under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code against the husband and his parents. The matter was later resolved through a compromise in which the wife agreed to return, but she allegedly failed to honor that commitment. In 2010, she filed a maintenance case, which was compromised in 2013. Under that settlement, the husband agreed to pay Rs 5,000 per month (later increased to Rs 6,000 per month). In 2019, the husband filed a suit seeking divorce on grounds of cruelty and desertion. The Family Court allowed the petition on September 1, 2022, dissolved the marriage, and directed the husband to pay Rs 10 lakh as lump-sum permanent alimony. The wife then challenged the decision before the High Court.
Arguments of the Parties
Wife (Appellant): The wife’s counsel argued that the Family Court failed to properly evaluate the evidence. They submitted that it was the husband who subjected the wife to cruelty and deserted her. They also asserted that the husband was allegedly living with another woman, making continued cohabitation impossible. Further, counsel contended that the permanent alimony of Rs 10 lakh was too low considering the husband’s employment with the Railways as a Central Government employee, claiming he earned Rs 81,689 per month and would retire soon with substantial retiral benefits.
Husband (Respondent): The husband’s counsel defended the Family Court’s decision, arguing it required no interference. They contended that the wife deserted the husband in 1990 without any justifiable cause and that the allegations regarding another woman were false. They also emphasized that the parties had been living separately for 36 years, showing that the marriage had effectively broken down irretrievably.
Court’s Analysis
The High Court considered the record and noted that the parties have indeed been living separately since 1990. On the present status of the relationship, it made the following observation:
“In the aforesaid circumstances, the considered view of this Court is that now the marital relation between the parties has become “dead wood marriage” and marital relation has become lifeless and without emotional or practical value. It is settled proposition of law that when a marriage is deemed a dead wood situation, the Courts may consider it a valid reason to grant a divorce, recognizing that forcing a couple to remain in such a relationship only prolongs their suffering and no purpose will be served in sailing the dead wood.”
To support this conclusion, the Court relied on Supreme Court decisions in Durga Prasanna Tripathy v. Arundhati Tripathy (2005) and Sujata Uday Patil v. Uday Madhukar Patil (2007), holding that once a marriage reaches a stage where reconciliation is no longer feasible, courts should take a pragmatic approach rather than forcing the parties to remain bound in a dysfunctional relationship.
Permanent Alimony (Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955): Regarding permanent alimony, the Court discussed relevant authorities including Kalyan Dey Chowdhury v. Rita Dey Chowdhury Nee Nandy (2017), Vinny Parmvir Parmar v. Parmvir Parmar (2011), U. Sree v. U. Srinivas (2013), Rajnesh v. Neha & Anr. (2021), and the more recent ruling in Rakhi Sadhukhan v. Raja Sadhukhan (2025). The Court highlighted that there is no strict mathematical formula for permanent alimony. Instead, the amount must be reasonable and realistic, guided by the husband’s financial capacity, the parties’ social status, and their likely needs.
To ascertain the husband’s actual financial position, the Court impleaded the General Manager of Chittaranjan Locomotive Works (CLW). An affidavit from CLW stated that the husband, employed as a Senior Technician (M.V. Driver), earned Rs 81,689 per month and was scheduled to retire on August 31, 2026. The affidavit also outlined anticipated retiral benefits, including: pension commutation value (Rs 11,52,405), retirement gratuity (Rs 15,27,702), encashment of leave salary (Rs 9,25,880), group insurance (Rs 63,790), provident fund (Rs 1,45,542), and basic pension (Rs 29,300 per month plus Dearness Relief).
Based on these details, the Court noted that the husband’s approximate total lump-sum retiral benefits would come to around Rs 38 lakh, and his monthly pension (including Dearness Relief at 60%) would be approximately Rs 48,000. The Court also recorded that the wife is currently 55 years old and would likely require support for about 17 years, with a projected life expectancy of 72 years.
After balancing the needs of both sides, it observed:
“Nevertheless, vis-à-vis such considerations, it remains his paramount duty to secure for the appellant-wife the standard of life which she was entitled to enjoy during the subsistence of the marriage, commensurate with his income and social status.”
Decision: The High Court affirmed the Family Court’s judgment dated September 1, 2022, including the decree signed on September 9, 2022, and upheld the dissolution of the marriage. However, it modified the alimony component.
Holding that Rs 10 lakh was ins ufficient, the Court fixed permanent alimony at Rs 40,00,000 (Rupees Forty Lakhs only) as a one-time payment for the wife’s sustenance. The husband was directed to pay the amount in four equal installments within 12 months. The first installment of Rs 10,00,000 was to be paid within one month from the date of the High Court order. The Court also granted liberty to the wife to seek appropriate relief in the event of default in payment.
Case Title: Sandhya Devi v. Rajesh Kumar Singh & Anr First Appeal No. 126 of 2022
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE