Upholding divorce for cruelty and desertion while substituting lump sum maintenance with monthly financial support.

The parties were married on February 24, 2002, and have two children

The appellant (wife) alleged she was subjected to dowry harassment and was eventually driven out of the matrimonial home

Conversely, the respondent (husband) alleged that the appellant insisted on living separately, used abusive language toward his parents, and harassed him mentally and physically

Following several cross-complaints, the respondent filed for divorce under Sections 13(1)(ia) and 13(1)(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955

The Family Court, Bokaro, granted the divorce on grounds of cruelty and desertion on November 23, 2022

This decree was affirmed by the High Court of Jharkhand on October 4, 2023, which noted the appellant’s strained relationship with her children and her prior undertaking to maintain cordial relations following a harassment complaint by her mother-in-law

The appellant then approached the Supreme Court

1. Whether the findings of fact regarding cruelty and desertion recorded by the lower courts warranted interference by the Supreme Court

2. Whether the lump sum maintenance of Rs. 6,00,000 awarded by the Family Court was sufficient to ensure the appellant’s continued financial support

Section 13(1)(ia) and Section 13(1)(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, which provide for divorce on the grounds of "cruelty" and "desertion" respectively

The principle that findings of fact based on a proper appreciation of evidence should not be disturbed unless perversity is demonstrated

The Court invoked its jurisdiction to ensure "complete justice" regarding financial support, acknowledging that a matrimonial bond broken beyond repair due to prolonged separation is a factor in determining the futility of resuming cohabitation

The Supreme Court observed that the lower courts' findings were rooted in substantial evidence, including the appellant’s own statement that she did not wish for her children to reside with her and the testimony of the parties' son, who supported the allegations of cruelty

The Court highlighted that the appellant had previously furnished an undertaking to improve her conduct following a complaint by her mother-in-law, which served as indicative evidence of her behavior

Because the parties had lived separately since 2018 and the matrimonial bond had broken down beyond repair, the Court found no reason to depart from the concurrent findings of the Family Court and the High Court

However, regarding maintenance, the Court determined that the initial lump sum was inadequate for long-term support

To ensure the appellant's continued welfare, the Court directed the respondent to pay a monthly maintenance of Rs. 10,000 starting from the date of the order, in place of the previously directed lump sum

The appeal was disposed of accordingly