Dissolution of Marriage Granted on Proof of Mental Cruelty Notwithstanding Original Decree for Judicial Separation

The parties married on April 28, 2007, and have a daughter.

The husband (Appellant) alleged persistent mental cruelty, including public screaming, false allegations of an illicit relationship between him and his mother, and desertion since August 6, 2012.

He originally sought divorce under Section 13(1)(ia)(iii) of the Hindu Marriage Act. The Principal Judge, Family Court, Gaya, passed a decree for judicial separation under Section 10 on May 2, 2023, rather than divorce, citing the future responsibilities toward the minor daughter.

The husband appealed seeking divorce; the wife appealed to set aside the judicial separation.

Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act regarding cruelty.

Section 13(1A)(i), which allows divorce if there is no resumption of cohabitation for one year following a decree of judicial separation.

Section 25 of the Act, which grants wide discretion to award permanent alimony based on the "conduct of parties" and "other circumstances".

Rajnesh v. Neha (2021) regarding the criteria for maintenance.

Kalyan Dey Chowdhury v. Rita Dey Chowdhury (2017) on the court's continuing jurisdiction.

Rakhi Sadhukhan v. Raja Sadhukhan (2025/2024) regarding ensuring financial stability for the spouse.

Principle that a child’s right to maintenance and inheritance is independent of the mother's alimony.

The High Court found that the Trial Judge correctly identified mental cruelty—specifically the wife's unfounded aspersions regarding the husband's relationship with his mother and her long-term desertion.

The High Court determined that judicial separation was insufficient as the parties had lived apart for 14 years with no prospect of reconciliation or cohabitation since the 2023 decree.

Under Section 13(1A), the husband attained a statutory right to divorce.

The Court noted that a decree of divorce on grounds of cruelty does not disqualify a spouse from receiving permanent alimony.

Given the husband's remarriage and the daughter's educational aspirations (NEET coaching), the Court upheld the parties' prior informal agreement for a lump-sum settlement of Rs. 20 lakhs.

The Court clarified as a matter of law that the wife cannot waive the daughter's independent rights to maintenance or ancestral property.

The wife’s appeal (M.A. 375/2023) was dismissed.

The Court ordered the husband to pay Rs. 20 lakhs as permanent alimony in two installments of Rs. 10 lakhs each.

It specifically held that the daughter remains entitled to claim separate maintenance for studies and retains her legal rights to inheritance regardless of this settlement.