A separation of about 18 years and her denial of conjugal relations amounted to cruelty against the husband, the Patna High Court has held, dismissing a wife’s appeal against a divorce decree.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
Patna: The Patna High Court has upheld a Family Court decree dissolving a marriage on the husband’s petition, dismissing the wife’s appeal and holding that a long separation and denial of conjugal relationship by the wife amounted to cruelty, while granting her liberty to apply for permanent alimony under Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act [Khushboo Kumari @ Khushboo Devi v. Abhishek Verma @ Chunnu Jee].
A Bench of Justices Bibek Chaudhuri and Rana Vikram Singh dismissed Miscellaneous Appeal No. 504 of 2023 on 6 October 2026, affirming the decree of 22 June 2022 passed by the Family Court, Bhojpur at Arrah, in Matrimonial Case No. 45 of 2013.
Married in 2007, apart since 2008
The parties were married on 3 December 2007, and the wife entered the matrimonial home on 5 December 2007. The husband’s case was that she behaved in a very rude and abusive manner, abused his mother physically and mentally, and refused conjugal life. He alleged that she left the matrimonial home on 29 March 2008, a day after what he described as an act of self-harm. The wife denied the allegations, said she was mistreated, and said the husband ousted her from the matrimonial home on 13 December 2008. The couple has lived apart ever since.
These were contested accounts. The Family Court accepted the husband’s case, and the High Court, on appeal, found no reason to disturb the decree.
A long trail of earlier litigation
The judgment records that the husband had earlier filed Divorce Suit No. 208 of 2008 on the grounds of desertion and cruelty, which was dismissed on contest on 14 July 2010. His Miscellaneous Appeal No. 658 of 2010 against that dismissal was dismissed by the High Court on 18 November 2011. A judicial separation case (No. 257 of 2015) was dismissed for default. Matrimonial Case No. 45 of 2013 was first dismissed on 11 June 2015, and an appeal against that dismissal was allowed on 17 January 2017, after which the case ended in the judgment of 7 June 2022 and the decree of 22 June 2022 that the wife challenged.
What the Bench held
The Bench grounded its conclusion in the length of the separation and the denial of a conjugal relationship:
“This long separation and denial of conjugal relationship by the wife amounts to cruelty on the part of the wife against her husband. Moreover, the facts of the case amply proves that the appellant was in complete desertion from her husband for more than two years immediately preceding the presentation of plaint.”
It then dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Trial Court’s judgment and decree in favour of the husband for dissolution of marriage. The judgment does not cite any decided cases.
Door left open on alimony
The Bench left the wife free to seek financial support. It said she may file an appropriate application under Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act claiming permanent alimony, and if she does, the Trial Judge is to dispose of it in accordance with law, expeditiously and preferably within four months of filing.
Why the judgment matters
The ruling shows how a prolonged separation, read together with a spouse’s refusal of a conjugal relationship, can be treated as cruelty and desertion that justify a decree of divorce, even after earlier suits by the same spouse had failed. It also keeps the financial question alive: a divorce decree does not close the door on permanent alimony under Section 25, and the Bench has asked the Trial Judge to decide any such application quickly.
The findings rest on the evidence in this case, in which the wife disputed the husband’s account throughout.
Case Title: Khushboo Kumari @ Khushboo Devi v. Abhishek Verma @ Chunnu Jee [Miscellaneous Appeal No. 504 of 2023]
Bench: Justice Bibek Chaudhuri and Justice Rana Vikram Singh, Patna High Court
Date of Judgment: October 6, 2026
Appearances: Mr. Dhananjay Mishra and Mr. Nilesh Kumar Nirala, Advocates, for the appellant; Mr. Binod Kumar Singh and Ms. Vagisha Pragya Vacaknavi, Advocates, for the respondent
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
If you or someone you know is struggling with distress or suicidal thoughts, support is available through Tele-MANAS on 14416.