Authority: High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi

Order Date: 19/06/2026 (C.A.V. on 05/05/2026)

Case Overview

  • Parties: Appellant‑wife Sandhya Devi (wife of Rajesh Kumar Singh) vs. Respondent‑husband Rajesh Kumar Singh and the General Manager, Chittaranjan Locomotive Works (CLW).
  • Nature of Proceeding: First Appeal No. 126 of 2022 under Section 19(1) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 against the Family Court judgment dated 01‑09‑2022 and decree dated 09‑09‑2022 in Original Suit No. 80 of 2019, which dissolved the marriage on grounds of cruelty and desertion.
  • Background:
  • Marriage solemnised on 29‑05‑1984 (Hindu rites).
  • Daughter Priti Kumar born; her marriage on 11‑07‑2007 was funded by the husband.
  • Appellant left matrimonial home in 1990, residing thereafter at her father’s house in Patherchapti, Madhupur (Deoghar).
  • Multiple attempts by husband’s family to bring her back failed.
  • 1992: Appellant filed false criminal case under IPC 498A (Jamtara PS Case No. 254 of 1992) – later compromised.
  • 2010: Maintenance case filed; compromise resulted in Rs 5,000 per month, later increased to Rs 6,000 per month, paid by husband.
  • Both parties have lived separately for approximately 36 years.
  • Procedural History:
  • Family Court examined four witnesses for the husband and two for the wife, along with documentary evidence (salary slip, order sheets of criminal‑miscellaneous case, etc.).
  • Family Court held the marriage dissolved on cruelty and desertion, granting a lump‑sum alimony of Rs 10 lakhs and permanent alimony of Rs 5 lakhs (later contested).
  • Appellant‑wife appealed, alleging error in finding cruelty/desertion and that the lump‑sum was inadequate given husband’s salary (Rs 81,669 per month) and impending retirement benefits.
  • Respondent‑husband contended the judgment was correct and that desertion was proven.

Final Outcome

  • The High Court affirmed the Family Court’s decree of divorce dated 01‑09‑2022 and 09‑09‑2022.
  • Regarding alimony, the Court found the earlier lump‑sum of Rs 10 lakhs insufficient and, after considering the husband’s salary (Rs 81,689 per month), retirement benefits (approx. Rs 38 lakhs), and projected pension (Rs 29,300 + Dearness Relief ≈ Rs 48,000 per month), ordered:

1. One‑time permanent alimony of Rs 40,00,000 to be paid in four equal instalments within 12 months, the first instalment within one month of the order.

2. Monthly permanent alimony of Rs 50,000 payable to the appellant‑wife, subject to a 5 % increase every two years.

  • The Court noted the appellant‑wife has no independent source of income and must rely on this maintenance for livelihood and medical needs.
  • No mandatory alimony was directed for the adult son (now 26 years), though voluntary assistance was left to the husband’s discretion.
  • The respondent‑husband was also directed to comply with the payment schedule; failure to do so would permit the appellant‑wife to approach the court for enforcement.

Topics: Divorce, Alimony