MAMTA DEVI v. SANJAY KUMAR
Affirmation of Divorce Decree for Cruelty and Desertion with Modification of Maintenance to Monthly Payments for Continued Financial Support.
Court: Supreme Court of India
Citation: 2026 INSC 346
Decision Date: 10-04-2026
List of Laws
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955; Family Law - Cruelty and Desertion; Maintenance and Financial Support; Article 142 of the Constitution of India
- Facts: The appellant-wife and respondent-husband were married in 2002 and had two children. The respondent sought divorce alleging cruelty and desertion, claiming the appellant insisted on living separately from the joint family, used abusive language, and harassed his parents. Conversely, the appellant alleged dowry harassment and claimed the respondent attempted to portray her as mentally unstable. Evidence revealed that the children preferred residing with their paternal grandfather, and the appellant had previously given an undertaking to maintain cordial relations following complaints of torture by her mother-in-law. The parties had been living separately since 2018.
- Procedural Posture: The Family Court, Bokaro, granted a decree of divorce in favor of the husband and awarded a lump sum maintenance of Rs. 6,00,000 to the wife. The High Court of Jharkhand affirmed this decision in a First Appeal. The appellant subsequently challenged these orders before the Supreme Court of India via a Special Leave Petition.
- Issue: Whether the concurrent findings of cruelty and desertion recorded by the lower courts warranted interference, and whether the quantum and mode of maintenance awarded to the appellant were sufficient for her continued financial support.
- Holding: The Supreme Court declined to interfere with the decree of divorce but modified the maintenance award. The Court directed the respondent to pay a monthly maintenance of Rs. 10,000 to the appellant in lieu of the previous arrangement.
- Reasoning: The Court held that the findings regarding cruelty and desertion were findings of fact based on a proper appreciation of evidence, including the testimony of the couple's son. There was no perversity demonstrated to justify interference under Article 136. The Court noted that the prolonged separation indicated an irretrievable breakdown of the marriage. However, to ensure "complete justice" and the "continued financial support" of the appellant, the Court exercised its discretion to convert the lump sum payment into a monthly maintenance of Rs. 10,000, considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case.
🔒 For Members Only