October 14, 2025 - The Patna High Court, led by Chief Justice P.B. Bajanthri and Justice S.B. P.D. Singh, has upheld the 2013 Family Court verdict that granted divorce between Sunila Devi and Pankaj Kumar, ending a marriage marred by prolonged separation and allegations of cruelty.
The court observed that the couple had lived apart for over two decades and that their relationship had reached a point of 'irretrievable breakdown,' leaving no room for reconciliation.
Background
The couple married on May 9, 1997, following Hindu rituals in Rohtas district. However, the marriage quickly disintegrated. According to Pankaj Kumar's claims before the Family Court, his wife was "quarrelsome" and stayed at her matrimonial home for barely a few weeks after marriage. He alleged that Sunila often threatened suicide and filed false complaints, including one under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, which led to his brief imprisonment.
On the other hand, Sunila Devi maintained that she was the one subjected to harassment and dowry demands. She claimed her husband deserted her without cause and filed a petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act seeking restitution of conjugal rights. The Family Court dismissed her plea while granting Pankaj a decree of divorce under Section 13(1)(i-a) for cruelty.
Court's Observations
Hearing the appeals together, Justice Singh delivered a common judgment, carefully reviewing two decades of failed attempts at reconciliation.
The bench noted,
"No relationship was established between the parties since 2003. Both have lived separately for more than 20 years. Rejoining now seems practically impossible."
The judges relied on Supreme Court precedents - including Joydeep Majumdar v. Bharti Jaiswal Majumdar (2021) and Samar Ghosh v. Jaya Ghosh (2007) - to explain that cruelty includes not just physical abuse but sustained emotional neglect, refusal of cohabitation, or humiliation causing mental agony.
"A unilateral decision to deny marital relations for a long period without valid reason amounts to mental cruelty," the judgment cited.
The court added that keeping such a marriage alive only inflicted further cruelty on both parties.
"To preserve the façade of this broken marriage would be doing injustice," Justice Singh wrote in the verdict.
Decision and Alimony
While upholding the Family Court's divorce decree, the High Court turned to the issue of financial settlement. The bench observed that the lower court had failed to decide on permanent alimony, though both parties were employed - Pankaj as a private school teacher and Sunila as a government panchayat teacher earning ₹28,232 per month.
Taking into account their incomes, social status, and properties, the court ordered Pankaj Kumar to pay ₹10 lakh as permanent alimony within three months. Failure to do so will attract 6% annual interest.
The judgment clarified that Sunila retains the right to seek additional maintenance under Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act through a separate petition if needed.
"It is the duty of the court to ensure that the wife lives with dignity and not in penury. Living need not be luxurious, but she should not suffer discomfort," the bench observed.
With this, both Miscellaneous Appeals (No. 639 and 640 of 2013) were disposed of.
Case Title: Sunila Devi vs Pankaj Kumar
Case Numbers:
- Miscellaneous Appeal No. 639 of 2013
- Miscellaneous Appeal No. 640 of 2013
Advocates Appeared:
- For the Appellant: Mr. Ajay Kumar Tiwari, Advocate
- For the Respondent: Mr. Dharmendra Kumar Singh, Advocate
