![Divorce granted for irretrievable breakdown of marriage subject to payment of lump-sum permanent alimony.. Gopal Maity v. Pratima Maity & Anr. [2026:JHHC:6794-DB]. Jharkhand High Court. LawLens](/stories/thumbnails/divorce-granted-for-irretrievable-breakdown-of-marriage-subject-to-payment-of-lump-sum-per-077208b0ff0a4b6397b6c8c8d0d4de97.webp)
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. 75Acts & Sections Cited
12 provisions across 6 statutes referred to in this judgment. Each provision opens on LawLens.
Family Courts Act, 19841
Hindu Marriage Act, 19553
Indian Penal Code, 18603
Dowry Prohibition Act, 19613
Code of Criminal Procedure, 19731
Special Marriage Act, 19541
Original 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
