36-Year Separation Reduced Matrimonial Bond To A ‘Dead Wood Marriage’: Jharkhand HC
It is entirely in the fitness of things that while taking into account the long separation between husband and wife, the Jharkhand High Court at Ranchi in a most learned, laudable, landmark, logical and latest judgment titled Sandhya Devi vs Rajesh Kumar Singh & Anr in First Appeal No. 126 of 2022 and cited in Neutral Citation No.: 2026:JHHC:17922-DB that was pronounced finally on 19.06.2026 has affirmed a decree of divorce dissolving more than three decades-old marriage on the grounds that a 36-year separation had reduced the matrimonial bond to a “dead wood marriage”. In this context, the Court cited the Apex Court judgments in Durga Prasanna Tripathy v. Arundhati Tripathy (2005) and Sujata Uday Patil v. Uday Madhukar Patil (2007) which establish that when a marriage has crossed the point of no return and a reunion is impossible, the courts must adopt a pragmatic approach rather than forcing the parties to remain bound against their wishes! Very rightly so! While upholding the dissolution of the marriage, the Ranchi High Court while modifying the lower court’s order to significantly enhance the permanent alimony awarded to the wife directed the husband to pay Rs 40 lakh as a one-time lump-sum payment instead of Rs 10 lakh that was originally ordered.
At the very outset, this robust, remarkable, rational and recent judgment authored by Hon’ble Mr Justice Sujit Narayan Prasad for a Division Bench of the Ranchi High Court comprising of himself and Hon’ble Mr Justice Sanjay Prasad sets the ball in motion by first and foremost putting forth in para 1 that, “The instant appeal under section 19(1) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 is directed against the judgment dated 01.09.2022 and the decree signed on 09.09.2022 passed in Original Suit No.80 of 2019 by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Jamtara, (in short, Family Judge) whereby and whereunder the petition filed under section 13 (1) (i-a) (i-b) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 by the respondent-husband against the appellant-wife, has been allowed and marriage between the appellant-wife and the respondent-husband has been dissolved by passing a decree of divorce.”
To put things in perspective, the Division Bench envisages in para 2 while dwelling on the factual matrix stating that, “The brief facts of the case as pleaded in the plaint having been recorded by the learned Family Judge, needs to be referred herein as:
(i) The appellant-wife and respondent-husband got married with each other on 29.05.1984 as per Hindu rites.
(ii) Thereafter, the appellant-wife started living in the respondent-husband’s house at Kangoi (Mihijam).
(iii) Out of the said wedlock, appellant-wife gave birth to a female child and after attaining her majority, she got married by the petitioner, his father and other family members on 11.07.2007 at Baidyanath Temple, Deoghar and all the expenses of the marriage were borne by the husband, respondent herein.
(iv) The appellant and the respondent last resided together at the respondent’s house till the year 1990.
(v) As a matter of fact, the appellant-wife, namely, Sandhya Devi, since the very beginning of matrimonial life was not willing to stay at her matrimonial home in a village as such she started showing her total unwillingness to stay with the respondent-husband at her matrimonial home and she used to flee away to her father’s house off and on against the will and without the consent of the respondent’s husband and his other family members.
(vi) Subsequently, the appellant-wife willfully left the respondent’s house in the year 1990 along with the minor female child and started living at her father’s place at Patherchapti, Madhupur District Deoghar.
(vii) Thereafter, several efforts were made by the husband and his other family members to bring back the respondent-wife, namely, Sandhya Devi but all efforts went in vain due to rigid attitude of the appellant-wife not to live in her matrimonial home.
(viii) Subsequently, in or about the year 1992 the appellant-wife filed a totally false case u/s 498A IPC against the respondent-husband and his parents with ulterior motives. The case continued for several years but thereafter finding no fruitful result, she compromised the case with the husband and agreed to live with him in her matrimonial home. However, she did not keep her promise and continued to live at her parents’ house as before. However, she used to take money from the respondent-husband from time to time on the plea of domestic expenses.
(ix) Again, in the year 2010 she filed a maintenance case against the respondent-husband which was compromised and the respondent-husband agreed to pay Rs. 5000/- per month to the appellant-wife and, accordingly, the said case was disposed of on 01.02.2013.
(x) After the compromise, the respondent-husband has been regularly paying the maintenance allowance @ Rs. 5000/- per month to the appellant-wife in her bank account.
(xi) The respondent, namely, Sandhya Devi since the year 1990 when she left her matrimonial home, has been living at her father’s house separately from her husband and during this long period she never performed her matrimonial obligation and she is willfully refusing to come and live with the respondent at her matrimonial home.
(xii) Further, the respondent-husband has filed a suit being Original Suit No. 80 of 2019 praying therein to pass a decree of divorce, and on contest, the Family Court dissolved the marriage of appellant-wife and respondent-husband on the grounds of cruelty and desertion, against which the instant appeal has been preferred.”
Most significantly and so also most forthrightly, the Division Bench encapsulates in para 45 what constitutes the cornerstone of this notable judgment postulating precisely that, “In the aforesaid circumstances, the considered view of this Court is that now the marital relation between the parties has become “dead wood marriage” and marital relation has become lifeless and without emotional or practical value. It is settled proposition of law that when a marriage is deemed a dead wood situation, the Courts may consider it a valid reason to grant a divorce, recognizing that forcing a couple to remain in such a relationship only prolongs their suffering and no purpose will be served in sailing the dead wood.”
Do note, the Division Bench notes in para 77 that, “In the instant case in compliance of the Court’s order dated 19.01.2026 the affidavit has been filed by respondent no.2 wherein details of the salary and perks of the respondent no.1-husband along with pension calculation has been given vide Annexure-B.”
Do also note, the Division Bench then notes in para 78 that, “We have perused the affidavit which has been filed on behalf of the respondent no.2, the General Manager, Chittaranjan Locomotive Works, Chittranjan in compliance of the order of this Court wherein it has been stated that the respondent no.1, namely, Rajesh Kumar Singh is presently holding the post of Senior Technician (M.V.Driver) in Level-6 of Pay Matrix under RS(RP) Rules, 2016. He is going to be superannuated from Railway Service w.e.f. 31.08.2026 on attaining the age of 60 years. His pension calculation sheet-retirement benefits have been annexed with the said affidavit and a tabular chart has been furnished with the said affidavit which is reproduced as under:
1. Commutation value of Pension Rs.11,52,405.00
2. Retirement Gratuity (RG) Rs.15,27,702.00
3. Encashment of Leave Salary Rs.9,25,880.00
4. Group Insurance (Saving Money) Rs.63,790.00
5. Provident Fund (as on 01.01/2026) Rs.1,45,542.00
6. Pension (before commutation) Rs.29300/-+ Dearness Relief.”
Do further note, the Division Bench notes in para 79 that, “On the other hand, it is evident from record that the appellant-wife has to survive for her livelihood as also she has to take care herself medically due to growing age on the amount of permanent alimony so given by the respondent-husband. At present, the appellant-wife is 55 years of age and taking into life expectancy of even 72 years, she has to survive for long 17 years on the amount of permanent alimony given by her husband beating the inflation etc. in addition to medical exigency due to growing age.”
It merits noting that the Division Bench notes in para 80 that, “Further, it has come in the impugned order that the respondent-husband is possessed of his own residential house and, upon retirement, shall be entitled to pensionary benefits quantified at Rs.29,300/- per month together with Dearness Relief. As per the prevailing scenario, the said pensionary emoluments, inclusive of Dearness Relief at the rate of 60%, would approximate Rs.48,000/- per month. Even if one-third of such pensionary amount is earmarked towards maintenance of the appellant-wife, the figure would be Rs.16,000/- per month. Taking into account the probable life expectancy of the appellant, of 72 years, the said monthly sum, spread over a period of twelve years, would cumulatively amounting to Rs.23,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty-Three Lakh). In addition thereto, as referred in the preceding paragraphs the respondent is due to retire in the month of August of the current year and shall receive retiral benefits to the tune of Rs.38,00,000/- (Rupees Thirty-Eight Lakh).”
Be it noted, the Bench then also notes in para 81 that, “Taking into consideration the submission advanced by learned counsel for the appellant-wife that she has no independent means to sustain herself, and further bearing in mind the impending retirement of the respondent-husband, as also his present earning capacity and financial liabilities, this Court is conscious that the respondent-husband must himself survive and discharge other responsibilities. Nevertheless, vis-à-vis such considerations, it remains his paramount duty to secure for the appellant-wife the standard of life which she was entitled to enjoy during the subsistence of the marriage, commensurate with his income and social status.”
As a corollary, the Division Bench then directs and holds in para 82 that, “For the reasons aforesaid, this Court considers it just, fair, and reasonable to fix a sum of Rs 40,00,000/- (Rupees Forty Lakhs only) as one-time permanent alimony, for the sustenance of the appellant-wife, who has no independent source of income other than the amount to be received from the respondent-husband.”
Resultantly, the Division Bench then also directs and holds in para 83 that, “In such view of the matter, the respondent no.1-husband is directed to pay a sum of Rs. 40,00,000/- (Forty lakh) which shall be paid by him in four equal installments within a period of 12 months from the date of passing of the order and first installment shall be paid within a period of one month from today.”
It is worth noting that the Division Bench further notes in para 84 that, “This Court, considering the factual aspect involved in the case and particularly the fact that due to financial crunch the survival of the appellant-wife may not get disturbed, grants liberty to the appellant-wife that if the amount is not credited to her account, as per the direction passed by this Court, she will be at liberty to approach the Court of law in accordance with law.”
On a positive note, the Division Bench observes in para 85 that, “This Court, however, hope and trust that the respondent-husband will not invite such situation and will abide by the direction so passed by this Court for permanent alimony in favour of the appellant-wife.”
In addition, the Division Bench then directs and holds in para 86 that, “With the aforesaid directions and observations, as made hereinabove, the instant appeal stands disposed of and decreed in the above terms.”
Finally, the Division Bench then aptly concludes by directing and holding in para 87 that, “Pending Interlocutory Application, if any, stands disposed of.”
Author Bio
