MAMTA DEVIversusSANJAY KUMAR

                 [2026] 4 S.C.R. 503 : 2026 INSC 346

                               Mamta Devi
                                    v.
                              Sanjay Kumar
                      (Civil Appeal No. 4391 of 2026)
                                10 April 2026
              [Vikram Nath* and Sandeep Mehta, JJ.]


                          Issue for Consideration
       Challenge by the appellant-wife to the decree of divorce granted
       to the respondent-husband on the ground of cruelty and desertion.

                                   Headnotes†
       Hindu Marriage Act, 1956 – ss.13(1) (ia) and 13(1) (ib) – Divorce
       granted by Family Court holding that the conduct of the
       appellant-wife amounted to cruelty and that the respondent-
       husband had also succeeded in establishing desertion –
       Appeal preferred by the appellant was dismissed – High Court
       affirmed the findings recorded by the Family Court as also the
       decree of divorce – Interference with, if warranted:
       Held: No – Marriage between the parties was solemnized in
       the year 2002 and they have admittedly been living separately
       since 2018 – Matrimonial bond has broken down beyond repair
       and there is no possibility of resuming cohabitation – On facts,
       the conduct attributed to the appellant amounted to cruelty and
       she had withdrawn from the society of the respondent without
       reasonable cause – Findings recorded by Courts below are findings
       of fact based on appreciation of evidence – No perversity has
       been demonstrated so as to warrant any interference – However,
       respondent to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- per month to the appellant
       towards maintenance, as opposed to a lump sum of Rs.6,00,000/-
       as directed by the Family Court at the time of granting divorce.
       [Paras 7-9, 11]

                                 List of Acts
       Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.


* Author
504                                                            [2026] 4 S.C.R.

                                     Supreme Court Reports


                                          List of Keywords
       Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955; Section
       13(1)(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955; Divorce; Cruelty;
       Desertion; Matrimonial bond broken down beyond repair; No
       possibility of resuming cohabitation; Prolonged separation; Findings
       of fact based on appreciation of evidence.

                                         Case Arising From
       CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 4391 of 2026
       From the Judgment and Order dated 4.10.2023 of the High Court
       of Jharkhand at Ranchi in FA No. 9 of 2023.

                                    Appearances for Parties
       Advs. for the Appellant(s):
       Gautam Jha, Pankaj Kumar, Sumit Kumar.
       Advs. for the Respondent(s):
       George Pothan Poothicote, Kanav Khatana, Ms. Ojeswita Singh,
       Ms. Swati Yadav, Danish Zubair Khan.

                       Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court

                                                Judgment

       Vikram Nath, J.

1.     Leave granted.
2.     The appellant is aggrieved by the judgment and order of the High
       Court of Jharkhand dated 04.10.2023 passed in F.A. No. 9/2023
       whereby the High Court dismissed the appeal preferred by the
       appellant-wife1 and affirmed the judgment passed by the Family
       Court granting divorce to the respondent-husband.2
3.     The relevant facts giving rise to the present appeal are as follows:
       3.1. The appellant and respondent got married on 24.02.2002 at
            Bokaro, Jharkhand in accordance with Hindu rites and customs.


1    Hereinafter referred to as ‘appellant’.
2    Hereinafter referred to as ‘respondent’.
[2026] 4 S.C.R.                                                       505

                      Mamta Devi v. Sanjay Kumar


           Two children, a son and a daughter, were born out of the wedlock
           in 2003 and 2005 respectively.
     3.2. After marriage, the parties resided in the matrimonial home
          along with the parents of the respondents, at Bokaro.
     3.3. According to the appellant, disputes arose between the parties
          and she was subjected to cruelty, including harassment on
          account of dowry demands. She stated that around the year
          2007, the parties began residing separately from the joint family
          along with the children. The appellant further alleged that the
          respondent got her examined by a psychiatrist with the intention
          of portraying her as mentally unstable. She also contended that
          she was ultimately driven out of the matrimonial home by the
          respondent and his family members.
     3.4. On the other hand, the respondent alleged that the appellant
          persistently insisted on living separately from the joint family
          and that even after the parties shifted to a separate residence,
          there was no improvement in her conduct. He further alleged
          that the appellant used abusive language towards his parents
          on several occasions and was also involved in disputes with the
          landlord. The respondent asserted that he had been subjected
          to continuous mental and physical harassment over the years
          and that the matrimonial relationship between the parties had
          irretrievably broken down.
     3.5. Several complaints were filed by the parties against each other.
     3.6. The respondent filed O.S. (DP) 486/2018 seeking divorce
          under sections 13(1)(ia) and 13(1)(ib) of the Hindu Marriage
          Act, 1955.
     3.7. By order dated 23.11.2022, the Family Court, Bokaro allowed
          the divorce petition and granted a decree of divorce in favour
          of the respondent.
     3.8. Aggrieved thereby, the appellant preferred First Appeal No. 9
          of 2023 before the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi.
     3.9. The High Court, by the impugned judgment and order dated
          04.10.2023, dismissed the appeal and affirmed the decree of
          divorce granted by the Family Court.
506                                                          [2026] 4 S.C.R.

                          Supreme Court Reports


       3.10. Aggrieved by the dismissal of the appeal, the appellant has
             preferred the present appeal.
4.     We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have examined
       the material placed on record.
5.     The Family Court upon appreciation of oral and documentary
       evidence led by the parties, recorded a finding that the respondent
       had established cruelty and desertion within the meaning of Sections
       13(1) (ia) and 13(1) (ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1956. The Court
       noted that the appellant used to quarrel with the respondent on trivial
       issues, resulting in persistent matrimonial discord. The Court further
       took note of complaints made regarding the conduct of the appellant
       towards the respondent as well as the children. It also noted that
       the matter was examined by the District Welfare Committee, which,
       upon consideration of the allegations, directed that the children
       reside with their paternal grandfather. The Family Court also noted
       that despite the parties living separately, the appellant had neither
       instituted proceedings for restitution of conjugal rights nor taken
       steps for custody of the children. On consideration of the aforesaid
       circumstances, the Family Court concluded that the conduct of the
       appellant amounted to cruelty and that the respondent had also
       succeeded in establishing desertion.
6.     The High Court in appeal referred to the aforesaid evidence and
       affirmed the findings recorded by the Family Court. The Court referred
       to the undertaking furnished by the appellant pursuant to a complaint
       dated 03.02.2017 made by her mother-in-law alleging torture and
       harassment, wherein the appellant had stated that she would maintain
       cordial relations with her husband and parents-in-law and would not
       give any cause for complaint in future. The High Court observed that
       these facts were not denied by the appellant and treated the same
       as indicative of her conduct. The High Court further relied upon the
       testimony of the son of the parties, who supported the allegations
       of cruelty and expressed unwillingness to reside with the appellant.
       The Court also noticed the appellant’s statement that she did not
       want the children to stay with her. Taking into account the aforesaid
       circumstances, the High Court concluded that the conduct attributed
       to the appellant constituted cruelty towards the respondent and
       that she had withdrawn from his society without reasonable cause,
       thereby affirming the decree of divorce.
[2026] 4 S.C.R.                                                       507

                         Mamta Devi v. Sanjay Kumar


7.   Having gone through the record, we are of the opinion that the
     findings recorded by Courts below are findings of fact based on
     appreciation of evidence. No perversity has been demonstrated so
     as to warrant the interference of this Court.
8.   It is relevant to note that the marriage between the parties was
     solemnized in the year 2002 and the parties have admittedly been
     living separately since 2018. The prolonged separation indicates that
     the matrimonial bond has broken down beyond repair and there is
     no possibility of resuming cohabitation.
9.   The High Court has also taken into consideration the material
     indicating strained relations between the appellant and the 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.
10. The findings so recorded are findings of fact based on appreciation
    of evidence. In the aforesaid circumstances, we are not inclined to
    take a view different from that taken by the High Court.
11. However, insofar as the issue of financial support to the appellant
    is concerned, it has been urged before us that the amount awarded
    requires reconsideration. Family Court at the time of granting divorce,
    directed the respondent to pay appellant a lump sum of Rs.6,00,000/-
    as maintenance. Having regard to the nature of the relief granted
    and the need to ensure continued financial support to the appellant,
    and considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, 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, payable from the date of this order.
12. Accordingly, the appeal is disposed of.
13. Pending application(s), if any, shall be disposed of.

     Result of the case: Appeal disposed of.




     †
         Headnotes prepared by: Divya Pandey