Marriage is often described as a lifelong partnership built on companionship, mutual respect, emotional support, and shared responsibilities. However, when spouses remain separated for decades with no meaningful interaction, no intention to reunite, and prolonged litigation replacing marital companionship, an important legal question emerges: should the law continue to preserve such a relationship merely because it exists on paper?
The Jharkhand High Court recently addressed this question in Sandhya Devi v. Rajesh Kumar Singh (2026:JHHC:17922-DB). While deciding an appeal against a decree of divorce, the Court held that a marriage in which the spouses had lived separately for nearly 36 years had effectively become “dead wood”, a relationship devoid of emotional, social, and practical value. At the same time, the Court ensured that the economic rights of the wife were adequately protected by substantially enhancing the amount of permanent alimony from ₹10 lakh to ₹40 lakh.
The decision illustrates how Indian courts increasingly balance the preservation of marriage with the realities of prolonged marital breakdown and financial justice.
Background of the Dispute
The parties were married on 29 May 1984 according to Hindu rites. They had one daughter during the marriage. Initially, they lived together at the husband’s residence, but their marital relationship soon deteriorated.
According to the husband, the wife was unwilling to live in the matrimonial home situated in a village. He alleged that she frequently left for her parental home without informing anyone and permanently left the matrimonial home in 1990, taking their minor daughter with her. Despite repeated attempts by him and his relatives to persuade her to return, she allegedly refused.
The wife presented an entirely different version. She contended that the husband had developed an illicit relationship with another woman and had effectively forced her out of the matrimonial home. She also claimed that she had filed criminal proceedings under Section 498A IPC and other provisions because of the husband’s conduct.
Over the years, the dispute expanded into several legal proceedings.
- A criminal case under Section 498A IPC was initiated and later compromised.
- The wife instituted maintenance proceedings.
- The husband agreed to pay monthly maintenance under a settlement.
- Despite these settlements, the parties never resumed cohabitation.
By the time the divorce proceedings reached the High Court, the spouses had lived apart for almost thirty-six years, making the separation longer than many marriages themselves.
The Journey from Family Court to High Court
Divorce Proceedings Before the Family Court
The husband filed a petition under Sections 13(1)(ia) and 13(1)(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, seeking divorce on the grounds of:
- Cruelty
- Desertion
The Family Court accepted his case and dissolved the marriage. It also directed payment of ₹10 lakh as permanent alimony to the wife.
Aggrieved by the decree, the wife approached the Jharkhand High Court, challenging both the finding of cruelty and desertion and the adequacy of the permanent alimony.
Rival Contentions Before the High Court
Wife’s Case
The wife argued that:
- The Family Court ignored her evidence.
- The husband himself had treated her cruelly.
- She had been compelled to leave because he maintained a relationship with another woman.
- She always desired a stable matrimonial life.
- The permanent alimony of ₹10 lakh was grossly inadequate considering the husband’s financial position.
She further submitted that the husband was employed in the Railways, earning more than ₹80,000 per month, and was due to receive substantial retirement benefits shortly.
Husband’s Case
The husband maintained that:
- The wife voluntarily deserted him in 1990.
- Several sincere efforts were made to bring her back.
- She repeatedly refused to resume cohabitation.
- The Family Court had correctly appreciated the evidence establishing cruelty and desertion.
Importantly, even the husband acknowledged that the parties had been living separately for about 36 years, leaving virtually no possibility of reconciliation.
Issues Before the High Court
The Division Bench primarily examined:
- Whether the Family Court rightly granted divorce on the grounds of cruelty and desertion.
- Whether the permanent alimony awarded required enhancement.
While analysing these issues, the Court closely examined the evidence of both parties and the surrounding circumstances.
The High Court’s Analysis
Appreciating the Evidence
The Court reviewed the testimonies of both spouses along with other witnesses. The husband consistently maintained that:
- the wife left the matrimonial home voluntarily,
- she repeatedly refused to return despite persuasion,
- criminal and maintenance proceedings ended in compromise,
- yet marital life never resumed.
The wife, on the other hand, alleged that the husband maintained an illicit relationship with another woman, forcing her to leave.
However, during cross-examination, certain admissions assumed significance.
The wife admitted that:
- she had been residing at her parental home since 1990,
- maintenance proceedings had concluded through compromise,
- she was receiving maintenance,
- and significantly, if the husband sought to take her back, she would not return.
These admissions played an important role in assessing whether any realistic possibility of restoration of matrimonial life still existed.
Understanding Desertion Under Hindu Marriage Law
The Court discussed the legal concept of desertion under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act. It was observed that desertion is not merely physical separation. Instead, it involves:
- actual separation; and
- an intention to permanently terminate cohabitation.
Likewise, the deserted spouse must establish:
- absence of consent to such separation; and
- absence of conduct justifying the separation.
The Court reiterated that temporary separation caused by anger or misunderstanding does not amount to legal desertion. Rather, desertion requires a settled intention to permanently abandon the marital relationship.
Examining the evidence, the Court found that the spouses had remained separated for nearly 36 years, an extraordinarily long duration demonstrating complete cessation of matrimonial life.
Why the Court Called It a “Dead Wood Marriage”
Perhaps the most striking aspect of the judgment is the Court’s description of the marriage as “dead wood.”
The Court observed that the relationship had become:
- emotionally lifeless,
- practically meaningless,
- socially non-functional,
- and incapable of revival.
The Bench remarked that compelling parties to continue such a relationship serves no meaningful purpose and merely prolongs suffering. Once matrimonial ties lose all emotional and practical significance, insisting upon the continuation of the legal bond does not advance the institution of marriage.
The Court therefore concluded that the marriage had become a “dead wood marriage”, where continuation of the legal relationship would achieve nothing constructive.
Reliance on Supreme Court Precedents
The High Court relied upon several Supreme Court decisions recognising that prolonged separation is an important circumstance while deciding matrimonial disputes.
Durga Prasanna Tripathy v. Arundhati Tripathy
The Supreme Court observed that where spouses have lived separately for many years and reunion is practically impossible, courts should acknowledge the ground realities instead of preserving a purely legal relationship.
The Jharkhand High Court found these observations directly applicable because the spouses had already spent thirty-six years apart.
Sujata Uday Patil v. Uday Madhukar Patil
The Court also relied on this judgment, where it was emphasised that matrimonial disputes require a pragmatic approach rather than an idealistic one.
The central question is whether the marriage can realistically survive—not merely whether it legally exists.
Can Courts Compel Parties to Live Together?
The High Court answered this question in the negative. Marriage certainly enjoys legal protection, but courts cannot compel unwilling spouses to resume cohabitation after decades of separation.
The Bench observed that where:
- reconciliation has become impossible,
- emotional bonds have completely disappeared,
- and both spouses have lived independent lives for decades,
judicial insistence upon continuation of marriage serves no beneficial purpose.
Accordingly, the Court affirmed the decree of divorce granted by the Family Court.
Permanent Alimony: The Court’s Financial Assessment
Permanent Alimony Became the Real Controversy
Although the Court upheld the divorce, it considered the Family Court’s award of ₹10 lakh as permanent alimony inadequate.
To arrive at a fair amount, the High Court adopted an unusual but significant course.
It impleaded the General Manager, Chittaranjan Locomotive Works, directing disclosure of:
- the husband’s salary,
- service details,
- pension,
- gratuity,
- provident fund,
- leave encashment,
- and retirement benefits.
The employer’s affidavit revealed that the husband:
- held the post of Senior Technician,
- earned a substantial salary,
- and was due to retire shortly with sizeable retiral benefits, including gratuity, commutation value, leave encashment, provident fund and pension.
Principles Governing Permanent Alimony
The Court analysed Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act in considerable detail.
It reiterated that permanent alimony is intended:
- not as punishment for either spouse,
- but to ensure that the financially dependent spouse is not reduced to destitution after dissolution of marriage.
The Court referred to several landmark Supreme Court decisions, including:
- Kalyan Dey Chowdhury v. Rita Dey Chowdhury
- Vinny Parmvir Parmar v. Parmvir Parmar
- U. Sree v. U. Srinivas
- Rajnesh v. Neha
- Rakhi Sadhukhan v. Raja Sadhukhan
From these authorities, the Court extracted certain settled principles:
- there is no mathematical formula for maintenance,
- the financial capacity of the husband must be considered,
- the wife’s independent income, if any, is relevant,
- maintenance should preserve reasonable dignity,
- and the amount should neither be excessive nor illusory.
Enhancement of Permanent Alimony
Applying these principles, the Court observed that:
- the wife had no independent source of livelihood,
- she had crossed 55 years of age,
- she remained financially dependent,
- the husband possessed stable employment and substantial retirement benefits,
- and she required financial security for the remainder of her life.
Considering all relevant circumstances, the Court enhanced the permanent alimony from ₹10 lakh to ₹40 lakh, thereby ensuring a more realistic financial settlement following dissolution of a marriage that had effectively ended decades earlier.
Why the Judgment Matters
This ruling is significant for several reasons. It demonstrates that Indian courts increasingly acknowledge practical realities rather than preserving marriages that have irreversibly broken down in substance. Although an irretrievable breakdown of marriage is not yet an independent statutory ground under the Hindu Marriage Act, prolonged separation remains an important factual circumstance while deciding issues of cruelty and desertion.
The judgment shows that dissolution of marriage does not dilute the court’s responsibility to secure financial justice for the economically weaker spouse.
The decision reinforces that permanent alimony is not a token payment. Courts are expected to carefully evaluate the earning capacity, retirement benefits, lifestyle, age, and future needs of the parties before determining an appropriate amount.
Conclusion
The Jharkhand High Court’s decision in Sandhya Devi v. Rajesh Kumar Singh reflects a realistic approach to matrimonial litigation that has spanned decades. A marriage cannot survive merely because a legal bond continues to exist while every meaningful element of marital life has disappeared.
At the same time, the Court carefully balanced dissolution with economic fairness by substantially enhancing permanent alimony after examining the husband’s actual financial position.
The judgment, therefore, conveys two equally important principles. First, courts will not insist upon preserving relationships that have become completely lifeless after decades of separation. Secondly, even when divorce becomes inevitable, the financial security and dignity of the dependent spouse remain integral to matrimonial justice.