Prolonged Separation Indicates Matrimonial Bond Broken Beyond Repair: Supreme Court Upholds Divorce Over Wife's Cruelty

"Prolonged separation indicates that the matrimonial bond has broken down beyond repair and there is no possibility of resuming cohabitation", Supreme Court, in a significant ruling, upheld a decree of divorce granted to a husband on the grounds of cruelty and desertion, observing that a prolonged separation between the couple indicated the marriage was irrevocably broken.

A bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta refused to interfere with the concurrent findings of the lower courts, noting that the wife's conduct constituted cruelty under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The Court, however, invoked its powers to ensure complete justice by modifying a previously awarded lump-sum alimony into a continuous monthly maintenance of Rs 10,000 for the wife.

The parties were married in 2002 and resided in a joint family setup in Bokaro, Jharkhand, before marital disputes led them to live separately. The respondent-husband filed a petition for divorce alleging persistent mental and physical harassment, use of abusive language by the wife towards his parents, and her withdrawal from his society. The Family Court granted the divorce decree in 2022, which was subsequently affirmed by the High Court of Jharkhand in 2023, prompting the appellant-wife to approach the Supreme Court.

The primary question before the court was whether the conduct of the wife, coupled with the prolonged separation, established cruelty and desertion under Sections 13(1)(ia) and 13(1)(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The Court was also called upon to determine if the lump-sum maintenance awarded by the Family Court was legally adequate to ensure the wife's continued financial support.

Concurrent Findings Of Fact On Cruelty

The Supreme Court observed that both the Family Court and the High Court had rightly appreciated the oral and documentary evidence to conclude that the wife's conduct amounted to cruelty. The bench noted that the appellant frequently quarreled on trivial issues, causing persistent matrimonial discord that ruined the marital relationship. The Court highlighted that the wife had furnished a written undertaking acknowledging her misconduct and promising to maintain cordial relations, which substantiated the husband's allegations of harassment.

Desertion And Children's Testimony

Delving into the ground of desertion under Section 13(1)(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, the bench observed that the wife had withdrawn from the husband's society without any reasonable cause. The Court gave significant evidentiary weight to the testimony of the couple's son, who supported the allegations of cruelty and explicitly expressed his unwillingness to reside with the appellant. It was additionally noted by the bench that despite living separately, the wife had not instituted any proceedings for the restitution of conjugal rights nor taken legal steps to seek custody of her children.

"These circumstances were cumulatively relied upon by the courts below to conclude that the conduct attributed to the appellant amounted to cruelty and that she had withdrawn from the society of the respondent without reasonable cause."

Prolonged Separation Evidences Irretrievable Breakdown

The Court placed strong emphasis on the timeline of the matrimonial dispute, observing that the marriage was solemnized in 2002 and the couple had admittedly been living completely separately since 2018. The bench reasoned that this extended eight-year period of separation was a clear indicator that the matrimonial relationship had deteriorated to a point of no return. The judges noted that the factual matrix presented no realistic possibility of the parties resuming cohabitation, making the dissolution of the marriage the only viable and logical outcome.

"The findings so recorded are findings of fact based on appreciation of evidence. No perversity has been demonstrated so as to warrant the interference of this Court."

Modification Of Maintenance Amount

While affirming the dissolution of the marriage, the Supreme Court recognized the paramount need to secure the financial future of the appellant-wife. The Family Court had originally directed the husband to pay a one-time lump-sum alimony of Rs 6,00,000 at the time of granting the divorce. However, the apex court bench found this specific arrangement inadequate for ensuring long-term financial stability. In the interest of complete justice, the Court modified this directive, substituting the lump-sum payment with a recurring monthly maintenance obligation to provide continuous and reliable support to the appellant.

"Having regard to the nature of the relief granted and the need to ensure continued financial support to the appellant... we deem it appropriate in the interest of complete justice to direct the respondent to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- per month to the appellant towards maintenance"

The Supreme Court ultimately disposed of the appeal by affirming the decree of divorce granted in favour of the respondent-husband. However, modifying the lower court's maintenance order, the Court directed the husband to pay a continuous monthly maintenance of Rs 10,000 to the appellant-wife, payable from the date of the Supreme Court's order.

Date of Decision: 10 April 2026