The High Court of Jharkhand has dismissed a First Appeal filed by a husband, affirming a Family Court’s decree that dissolved his marriage on grounds of cruelty. The Division Bench, comprising Justice Sujit Narayan Prasad and Justice Sanjay Prasad, observed that a husband’s illicit relationship with his sister-in-law and the subsequent physical assault on the wife constitute grave matrimonial cruelty. Crucially, the Court held that a wife’s independent income does not disqualify her from receiving permanent alimony.
The appeal challenged a judgment and decree passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Dhanbad. The lower court had allowed the wife’s suit under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, and directed the husband to pay ₹6 lakh as alimony. The High Court, after evaluating the evidence regarding matrimonial obligations and financial capacity, upheld the decree in its entirety, finding no perversity in the lower court’s decision.
Background of the Case
The parties were married in April 2021 as per Hindu Rites and Customs. According to the wife’s testimony, the matrimonial harmony lasted only a week, following which she was subjected to physical and mental torture over dowry demands, specifically for a four-wheeler.
The crux of the wife’s allegation involved her witnessing the husband in a “compromising position” with his sister-in-law. She asserted that when she objected to this illicit relationship, she was confined, abused, and brutally assaulted. The wife further alleged that even after a compromise in a separate criminal proceeding, the husband continued the abuse, leading to a terminated pregnancy caused by physical violence. She was finally ousted from the matrimonial home in May 2024.
The husband denied these allegations, claiming it was a love marriage where no dowry was exchanged. He contended that the wife pressurized him to sever ties with his family and that she terminated her pregnancies without his consent.
Arguments of the Parties
The appellant husband argued that the findings of cruelty were unsupported by evidence. He further contended that the award of ₹6 lakh as alimony was unjustified as the wife was a teacher with an independent income. He also alleged that the court failed to explore reconciliation possibilities as required under Section 23(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act.
The respondent wife maintained that her testimony regarding physical violence and the husband’s habitual cohabitation with his sister-in-law was grave and consistent. Her counsel also informed the Court that after the expiry of the limitation period for appeal, the wife had remarried and was currently in an advanced stage of pregnancy.
Court’s Analysis and Observations
On the Finding of Cruelty
The Court examined the definition of “cruelty” as a course of conduct that adversely affects a spouse. Citing Dr. N.G. Dastane vs. Mrs. S. Dastane (1975) and Joydeep Majumdar v. Bharti Jaiswal Majumdar (2021), the Bench noted:
“The testimony of the respondent-plaintiff-wife is consistent and detailed, narrating specific incidents of cruelty, confinement and assault. The allegations of illicit relationship, physical violence, and termination of pregnancy owing to assault are grave in nature.”
The Court found that the husband failed to produce cogent evidence to dislodge these testimonies, and his behavior following the compromise demonstrated continued cruelty.
On Alimony and the Wife’s Income
Addressing the husband’s objection to the alimony based on the wife’s employment, the Court referred to Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act and precedents like Shailja v. Khobbanna (2018) and Sunita Kachwaha v. Anil Kachwaha (2014).
The Bench held:
“It is settled position of law that mere earning of some income by the wife cannot, by itself, be a ground to reject or reduce her claim for maintenance.”
The Court emphasized that “sustenance” means more than “mere survival” and must allow the wife to live in “reasonable comfort” relative to the lifestyle she enjoyed in her matrimonial home.
Decision
Concluding that the matrimonial bond had effectively broken down due to the husband’s conduct, the High Court found no reason to interfere with the Family Court’s order.
“This Court… is of the view that the judgment passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Dhanbad… requires no interference by this Court. Accordingly, the instant appeal fails and is dismissed.”
Case Details
- Case Title: Rahul Kumar v. Deepika Gupta
- Case No.: F.A. No. 233 of 2025
- Bench: Justice Sujit Narayan Prasad and Justice Sanjay Prasad
- Date: May 4, 2026
