MAMTA DEVI versus SANJAY KUMAR

Citation: [2026] 4 S.C.R. 503 · Decided: 10-04-2026 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: VIKRAM NATH · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

[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she had withdrawn from the society of the respondent without 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. 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.