36-Year Marital Separation Treated as ‘Dead Wood Marriage’: Key Takeaways from Jharkhand HC Decision in Sandhya Devi vs Rajesh Kumar Singh & Anr

Introduction

The Jharkhand High Court at Ranchi, in Sandhya Devi vs Rajesh Kumar Singh & Anr, First Appeal No. 126 of 2022 (Neutral Citation No.: 2026:JHHC:17922-DB), delivered a significant judgment on 19.06.2026 dealing with a marriage that had effectively broken down irretrievably after a separation of 36 years.

The Division Bench comprising Hon’ble Mr Justice Sujit Narayan Prasad and Hon’ble Mr Justice Sanjay Prasad upheld the decree of divorce granted by the Family Court, branding the relationship a “dead wood marriage” and, at the same time, substantially revising the quantum of permanent alimony payable to the wife.

The ruling is important for two key reasons:

  • It reiterates that when a matrimonial relationship has crossed the “point of no return”, the Courts ought to take a realistic view rather than force unwilling parties to continue in name-only marriages.
  • It reinforces the obligation of the husband to reasonably secure the financial future of the estranged wife through fair and adequate permanent alimony.

Procedural Background of the Appeal

Appeal Under Family Courts Act

The matter reached the Jharkhand High Court as an appeal filed under section 19(1) of the Family Courts Act, 1984. The appeal was directed against:

  • The judgment dated 01.09.2022; and
  • The decree dated 09.09.2022

passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Jamtara in Original Suit No. 80 of 2019.

In that original proceeding, the respondent-husband had moved a petition seeking dissolution of marriage under section 13 (1) (i-a) (i-b) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 on the grounds of cruelty and desertion. The Family Court allowed his petition and granted a decree of divorce.

The wife (Sandhya Devi) challenged that decree before the High Court, primarily contesting:

  • The grounds on which the divorce had been granted; and
  • The sufficiency of the amount of permanent alimony that had been awarded in her favour.

Factual Matrix of the Dispute

Marriage and Early Years

The relevant background, as recorded by the Family Court and noted by the High Court, may be summarised as follows:

  1. The parties solemnized their marriage on 29.05.1984 according to Hindu rites and ceremonies.
  2. After marriage, the wife started residing at the matrimonial home located at Kangoi (Mihijam).
  3. From this wedlock, one daughter was born.
  4. The daughter’s marriage was performed on 11.07.2007 at Baidyanath Temple, Deoghar, and the expenses of the marriage were borne by the husband, assisted by his father and other family members.

Breakdown of Cohabitation

The cohabitation between the spouses was very short-lived:

  • The couple last resided together in the matrimonial home till around 1990.
  • It was alleged by the husband that from the outset the wife was disinclined to live in the village matrimonial home and would frequently leave for her parental house without his consent or that of his family.

Eventually:

  • Around the year 1990, the wife left the matrimonial home along with the minor daughter and went to live permanently at her parental home at Patherchapti, Madhupur, District Deoghar.
  • Repeated efforts by the husband and his family to bring her back reportedly failed, allegedly because of her firm stance not to return.

Criminal Proceedings and Compromises

The relationship further deteriorated through litigation:

  • Around 1992, the wife initiated a criminal case under section 498A IPC against the husband and his parents.
  • That case continued for several years, but ultimately the parties entered into a compromise. The wife agreed to resume matrimonial life; however, in practice, she continued to stay at her parental home.
  • Despite continued separation, she was receiving money from the husband from time to time on the ground of domestic needs.

Later: