The High Court this month with the bench upholding the family court’s finding that the marriage had broken down and confirming a decree of divorce while also ordering a one-time payment to secure the wife’s future. The Division Bench of the Chhattisgarh High Court at Bilaspur Justices Rajani Dubey and Amitendra Kishore Prasad reserved the case.
The appeal before the High Court was filed by Mrs. Verma challenging the Family Court’s July 27, 2022 decree that had allowed her husband’s petition for divorce under Sections 13(1)(i-a) (cruelty) and 13(1)(i-b) (desertion) of the Hindu Marriage Act. The record shows the marriage was solemnised on 20 April 1978 and produced three children; by the mid-1990s the family had moved to Bhilai where employment with the Bhilai Steel Plant shaped much of the couple’s domestic arrangements.
The High Court’s careful review of evidence accepted the trial court’s conclusion that the marital relationship had effectively collapsed. The judges noted a long history of quarrels, multiple complaints and criminal incidents on both sides, and conflicting accounts about when cohabitation ended the wife saying separation began in 2017 while the husband placed the breakdown earlier, around 2009–2010. After weighing authorities on cruelty and desertion and the factual matrix in this file, the bench found no reason to disturb the Family Court’s finding that desertion and cruelty had been established.
Alongside upholding the divorce decree, the High Court addressed the wife’s future maintenance. The judgment records that the parties were already receiving a monthly maintenance sum (noted in the record as ₹9,000 per month for the wife and a daughter), but, applying the broad principles the Supreme Court has laid down for permanent alimony, the Division Bench directed a lump-sum award of ₹10,00,000 to the wife as permanent alimony in the interest of justice. The appeal was disposed of with that direction.
For readers tracking how courts balance fault and need in long matrimonial disputes, this judgment illustrates the twofold approach family benches often take: first, a fact-sensitive examination of whether conduct amounts to cruelty or desertion; second, a pragmatic exercise in securing post-decree sustenance by reference to status, past maintenance, and the parties’ means and liabilities. The court explicitly applied settled case law on cruelty, desertion and permanent alimony in reaching its conclusions.
Case Details : FA(MAT) No. 185 of 2022, Leela Verma vs Heeralal Verma. For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Purnendra Khichariya, Advocate. For the Respondent(s) : Ms. Sweksha Sharma, Advocate appears on
behalf of Mr. Prasoon Agrawal, Advocate for the respondent.