Mamta Devi vs Sanjay Kumar
- Court
- Supreme Court
<div> 2026 INSC 346<br /> <b>REPORTABLE </b><br /> <b> </b><br /> <b>IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA </b><br /> <b>CIVIL APELLATE JURISDICTION </b><br /> <b> </b><br /> <b> CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2026 </b><br /> <b>@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 20325 OF 2024 </b><br /> <b> </b><br /> <b>MAMTA DEVI </b> <b> </b> <b> </b> <b> </b> <b> …APPELLANT </b><br /> <b>VERSUS </b><br /> <b>SANJAY KUMAR </b> <b> </b> <b> </b> <b> …RESPONDENT </b><br /> <b> </b><br /> <b> </b><br /> <b> </b><br /> <b>J U D G M E N T </b><br /> <b>VIKRAM NATH, J.</b> <b> </b> <b> </b><br /> <br /> 1. Leave granted. <br /> 2. The appellant is aggrieved by the judgment and order <br /> of the High Court of Jharkhand dated 04.10.2023 <br /> passed in F.A. No. 9/2023 whereby the High Court <br /> 1<br /> dismissed the appeal preferred by the appellant-wife <br /> and affirmed the judgment passed by the Family Court <br /> 2<br /> granting divorce to the respondent-husband. <br /> 3. The relevant facts giving rise to the present appeal are <br /> as follows: <br /> Signature Not Verified<br /> Digitally signed by<br /> NEETU KHAJURIA<br /> Date: 2026.04.10<br /> 15:48:08 IST<br /> Reason:<br /> <br /> 1<br /> Hereinafter referred to as ‘appellant’. <br /> 2<br /> Hereinafter referred to as ‘respondent’. <br /> C A @ SLP(C)No.20325/2024 Page <b>1</b> of <b>7</b> <br /> <br /><br /> 3.1. The appellant and respondent got married on <br /> 24.02.2002 at Bokaro, Jharkhand in accordance <br /> with Hindu rites and customs. Two children, a son <br /> and a daughter, were born out of the wedlock in <br /> 2003 and 2005 respectively. <br /> 3.2. After marriage, the parties resided in the <br /> matrimonial home along with the parents of the <br /> respondents, at Bokaro. <br /> 3.3. According to the appellant, disputes arose between <br /> the parties and she was subjected to cruelty, <br /> including harassment on account of dowry <br /> demands. She stated that around the year 2007, <br /> the parties began residing separately from the joint <br /> family along with the children. The appellant <br /> further alleged that the respondent got her <br /> examined by a psychiatrist with the intention of <br /> portraying her as mentally unstable. She also <br /> contended that she was ultimately driven out of the <br /> matrimonial home by the respondent and his <br /> family members. <br /> 3.4. On the other hand, the respondent alleged that the <br /> appellant persistently insisted on living separately <br /> from the joint family and that even after the parties <br /> shifted to a separate residence, there was no <br /> improvement in her conduct. He further alleged <br /> that the appellant used abusive language towards <br /> C A @ SLP(C)No.20325/2024 Page <b>2</b> of <b>7</b> <br /> <br /><br /> his parents on several occasions and was also <br /> involved in disputes with the landlord. The <br /> respondent asserted that he had been subjected to <br /> continuous mental and physical harassment over <br /> the years and that the matrimonial relationship <br /> between the parties had irretrievably broken down. <br /> 3.5. Several complaints were filed by the parties against <br /> each other. <br /> 3.6. The respondent filed O.S. (DP) 486/2018 seeking <br /> divorce under sections 13(1)(ia) and 13(1)(ib) of the <br /> Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. <br /> 3.7. By order dated 23.11.2022, the Family Court, <br /> Bokaro allowed the divorce petition and granted a <br /> decree of divorce in favour of the respondent. <br /> 3.8. Aggrieved thereby, the appellant preferred First <br /> Appeal No. 9 of 2023 before the High Court of <br /> Jharkhand at Ranchi. <br /> 3.9. The High Court, by the impugned judgment and <br /> order dated 04.10.2023, dismissed the appeal and <br /> affirmed the decree of divorce granted by the Family <br /> Court. <br /> 3.10. Aggrieved by the dismissal of the appeal, the <br /> appellant has preferred the present appeal. <br /> 4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and <br /> have examined the material placed on record. <br /> C A @ SLP(C)No.20325/2024 Page <b>3</b> of <b>7</b> <br /> <br /><br /> 5. The Family Court upon appreciation of oral and <br /> documentary evidence led by the parties, recorded a <br /> finding that the respondent had established cruelty <br /> and desertion within the meaning of Sections 13(1) (ia) <br /> and 13(1) (ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1956. The <br /> Court noted that the appellant used to quarrel with <br /> the respondent on trivial issues, resulting in <br /> persistent matrimonial discord. The Court further <br /> took note of complaints made regarding the conduct <br /> of the appellant towards the respondent as well as the <br /> children. It also noted that the matter was examined <br /> by the District Welfare Committee, which, upon <br /> consideration of the allegations, directed that the <br /> children reside with their paternal grandfather. The <br /> Family Court also noted that despite the parties living <br /> separately, the appellant had neither instituted <br /> proceedings for restitution of conjugal rights nor taken <br /> steps for custody of the children. On consideration of <br /> the aforesaid circumstances, the Family Court <br /> concluded that the conduct of the appellant amounted <br /> to cruelty and that the respondent had also succeeded <br /> in establishing desertion. <br /> <br /> 6. The High Court in appeal referred to the aforesaid <br /> evidence and affirmed the findings recorded by the <br /> Family Court. The Court referred to the undertaking <br /> furnished by the appellant pursuant to a complaint <br /> C A @ SLP(C)No.20325/2024 Page <b>4</b> of <b>7</b> <br /> <br /><br /> dated 03.02.2017 made by her mother-in-law alleging <br /> torture and harassment, wherein the appellant had <br /> stated that she would maintain cordial relations with <br /> her husband and parents-in-law and would not give <br /> any cause for complaint in future. The High Court <br /> observed that these facts were not denied by the <br /> appellant and treated the same as indicative of her <br /> conduct. The High Court further relied upon the <br /> testimony of the son of the parties, who supported the <br /> allegations of cruelty and expressed unwillingness to <br /> reside with the appellant. The Court also noticed the <br /> appellant’s statement that she did not want the <br /> children to stay with her. Taking into account the <br /> aforesaid circumstances, the High Court concluded <br /> that the conduct attributed to the appellant <br /> constituted cruelty towards the respondent and that <br /> she had withdrawn from his society without <br /> reasonable cause, thereby affirming the decree of <br /> divorce. <br /> <br /> 7. Having gone through the record, we are of the opinion <br /> that the findings recorded by Courts below are <br /> findings of fact based on appreciation of evidence. No <br /> perversity has been demonstrated so as to warrant the <br /> interference of this Court. <br /> 8. It is relevant to note that the marriage between the <br /> parties was solemnized in the year 2002 and the <br /> C A @ SLP(C)No.20325/2024 Page <b>5</b> of <b>7</b> <br /> <br /><br /> parties have admittedly been living separately since <br /> 2018. The prolonged separation indicates that the <br /> matrimonial bond has broken down beyond repair and <br /> there is no possibility of resuming cohabitation. <br /> 9. The High Court has also taken into consideration the <br /> material indicating strained relations between the <br /> appellant and the children. These circumstances were <br /> cumulatively relied upon by the courts below to <br /> conclude that the conduct attributed to the appellant <br /> amounted to cruelty and that she had withdrawn from <br /> the society of the respondent without reasonable <br /> cause. <br /> 10. The findings so recorded are findings of fact based on <br /> appreciation of evidence. In the aforesaid <br /> circumstances, we are not inclined to take a view <br /> different from that taken by the High Court. <br /> <br /> 11. However, insofar as the issue of financial support to <br /> the appellant is concerned, it has been urged before <br /> us that the amount awarded requires reconsideration. <br /> Family Court at the time of granting divorce, directed <br /> the respondent to pay appellant a lump sum of <br /> Rs.6,00,000/- as maintenance. Having regard to the <br /> nature of the relief granted and the need to ensure <br /> continued financial support to the appellant, and <br /> considering the <b> </b> overall facts and circumstances of the <br /> case, we deem it appropriate in the interest of <br /> C A @ SLP(C)No.20325/2024 Page <b>6</b> of <b>7</b> <br /> <br /><br /> complete justice to direct the respondent to pay a sum <br /> of Rs.10,000/- per month to the appellant towards <br /> maintenance, payable from the date of this order. <br /> 12. Accordingly, the appeal is disposed of. <br /> 13. Pending application(s), if any, shall be disposed of. <br /> <br /> <b>………………………………………..J. </b><br /> <b>[VIKRAM NATH] </b><br /> <b> </b><br /> <b> </b><br /> <b>………………………………………..J. </b><br /> <b>[SANDEEP MEHTA] </b><br /> <b> </b><br /> <b>NEW DELHI </b><br /> <b>APRIL 10, 2026 </b><br /> C A @ SLP(C)No.20325/2024 Page <b>7</b> of <b>7</b> <br /> </div>