The Supreme Court of India, in a judgment delivered on April 10, 2026, has affirmed the findings of the High Court of Jharkhand and the Family Court of Bokaro, upholding a decree of divorce granted to a husband on the grounds of cruelty and desertion. While the Bench, comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta, emphasized that it would not interfere with findings of fact based on a thorough appreciation of evidence, it exercised its jurisdiction to replace a one-time lump sum alimony with a monthly maintenance arrangement to ensure “complete justice.”
Legal Issue and Outcome
The primary legal issue involved the validity of a divorce decree granted under Sections 13(1)(ia) (cruelty) and 13(1)(ib) (desertion) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The Supreme Court found that the respondent-husband had successfully established both grounds through oral and documentary evidence. While the dissolution of marriage was upheld, the Court modified the financial relief awarded to the appellant-wife, directing monthly payments instead of the previously ordered lump sum.
Background of the Case
The appellant (wife) and the respondent (husband) were married on February 24, 2002, in Bokaro, Jharkhand. The couple has two children, a son born in 2003 and a daughter born in 2005. The respondent filed for divorce in 2018 (O.S. (DP) 486/2018), alleging persistent mental and physical harassment.
The appellant alleged she was subjected to cruelty and dowry-related harassment. She further claimed that the respondent attempted to portray her as mentally unstable by having her examined by a psychiatrist. Conversely, the respondent alleged the appellant used abusive language toward his parents and persistently insisted on living separately from the joint family. The Family Court, Bokaro, granted the divorce on November 23, 2022, a decision affirmed by the High Court of Jharkhand on October 4, 2023.
Arguments and Evidence Considered
The courts below relied on specific evidentiary material to reach their conclusions:
- Testimony of the Son: The High Court relied upon the testimony of the parties’ son, who supported the allegations of cruelty and expressed an unwillingness to reside with the appellant.
- Appellant’s Statement: The Court noticed the appellant’s own statement that she did not want the children to stay with her.
- Previous Undertaking: The High Court referred to an undertaking from February 2017, where the appellant had promised to maintain cordial relations following a complaint of torture and harassment made by her mother-in-law.
- Lack of Remedial Action: The Family Court noted that the appellant had neither instituted proceedings for restitution of conjugal rights nor taken steps for the custody of the children.
Court’s Analysis: Non-Interference with Findings of Fact
The Supreme Court centered its analysis on the principle that findings of fact based on a proper appreciation of evidence should not be disturbed unless they are perverse. The Bench observed:
“Having gone through the record, we are of the opinion that the findings recorded by Courts below are findings of fact based on appreciation of evidence. No perversity has been demonstrated so as to warrant the interference of this Court.”
The Court further noted that the parties have been living separately since 2018, indicating a breakdown of the matrimonial bond beyond repair. The Bench stated:
“The findings so recorded are findings of fact based on appreciation of evidence. In the aforesaid circumstances, we are not inclined to take a view different from that taken by the High Court.”
The Decision: Modification of Financial Support
While upholding the dissolution of marriage, the Supreme Court addressed the adequacy of the financial support awarded to the appellant. The Family Court had originally directed the respondent to pay a lump sum of ₹6,00,000 as maintenance.
Citing the need to ensure “continued financial support” and the “overall facts and circumstances of the case,” the Supreme Court modified this award. The Court directed:
“We deem it appropriate in the interest of complete justice to direct the respondent to pay a sum of Rs. 10,000/- per month to the appellant towards maintenance, payable from the date of this order.”
The appeal was disposed of with these directions, and the decree of divorce stands affirmed.
Case Details:
- Case Title: Mamta Devi v. Sanjay Kumar
- Case Number: Civil Appeal No. ___ of 2026 (@ SLP (C) No. 20325 of 2024)
- Bench: Justice Vikram Nath, Justice Sandeep Mehta
- Date: April 10, 2026
