Facts
The appellant (husband) and respondent (wife) married on 28.04.1998 and have one daughter.
Source reference: para. 2(i)-(iii)The husband alleged that the wife exhibited "peevish" and "termagant" behavior, refused to live with his ailing parents, and eventually deserted the matrimonial home in December 1999.
Source reference: para. 2(v)-(vii)The wife filed a criminal case under Sections 498A/406/313 of the IPC, resulting in the husband's acquittal in 2019.
Source reference: para. 2(xi)She also obtained a maintenance order of ₹8,000 per month.
Source reference: para. 2(xii)The husband filed for divorce under Section 13(1)(i-a) and (i-b) of the Hindu Marriage Act (HMA), 1955, on grounds of cruelty and desertion.
Source reference: para. 3The Family Court dismissed the suit ex-parte, finding no evidence of cruelty or desertion.
Source reference: para. 6The husband appealed, noting the parties had lived separately for over 20 years.
Source reference: para. 8(vi)During the appeal, it was revealed the husband received approximately ₹74 lakhs in retiral benefits from Tata Steel.
Source reference: para. 18-19Issues
Whether the long-term separation of 20 years and the filing of a failed criminal case constitute grounds for dissolution of marriage.
Source reference: para. 30, 36Whether the marriage had broken down irretrievably, rendering it a "dead wood" relationship.
Source reference: para. 36What constitutes a just and fair quantum of permanent alimony under Section 25 of the HMA, considering the husband's financial status and the daughter's needs.
Source reference: para. 43, 73Law Applied
The court applied Section 13(1) of the HMA regarding cruelty and desertion.
Source reference: para. 3It relied on the principle of "irretrievable breakdown" and "dead wood marriage" where a relationship is lifeless and beyond repair.
Source reference: para. 36The court cited Durga Prasanna Tripathy v. Arundhati Tripathy.
Source reference: para. 37The court cited Sujata Uday Patil v. Uday Madhukar Patil.
Source reference: para. 38Regarding alimony, the court applied Section 25 of the HMA.
Source reference: para. 44The court applied the guidelines from Rajnesh v. Neha (2021) regarding the standard of living and financial capacity.
Source reference: para. 55It further referenced Rakhi Sadhukhan v. Raja Sadhukhan (2025) regarding the periodic enhancement and adequacy of alimony to prevent penury.
Source reference: para. 56, 65Reasoning
The High Court found that the parties had been living separately for 20 years, and the husband had been acquitted of criminal charges filed by the wife, signifying a "dead wood" marriage where reunion was impossible.
Source reference: para. 34-36The Court reasoned that forcing the couple to remain together would only prolong suffering.
Source reference: para. 36Regarding alimony, the Court rejected the husband’s offer of ₹10 lakhs as "meagre".
Source reference: para. 12, 18Applying the Rajnesh v. Neha factors, the Court analyzed the husband's substantial retiral benefits (₹74.98 lakhs) and property holdings against the wife's lack of income and the 21-year-old daughter's educational aspirations (M.Tech).
Source reference: para. 15, 67, 70The Court determined that alimony must reflect the standard of living the wife would have enjoyed and must account for future inflation over her remaining life expectancy.
Source reference: para. 70-71Holding
The Court allowed the appeal, quashed the Family Court's judgment, and granted a decree of divorce.
It held that the marriage had irretrievably broken down.
Source reference: para. 36The Court directed the appellant-husband to pay a total permanent alimony of ₹50,00,000 (Fifty Lakhs) in four equal installments over 12 months.
Source reference: para. 74From this sum, ₹10,00,000 must be placed in a fixed deposit for the daughter's education.
Source reference: para. 74The Court clarified that the daughter’s right to ancestral property inheritance remains unaffected.
Source reference: para. 75Original Court PDF
Gopal Maity v. Pratima Maity & Anr. [2026:JHHC:6794-DB]
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in