A decree of divorce is only as strong as the findings beneath it. On 30 October 2026, in Suman Kumar Mandal v. Kumari Rashmi Sinha, F.A. No. 252 of 2024 with F.A. No. 40 of 2025 (neutral citation 2026:JHHC:31866-DB), a Division Bench of the Jharkhand High Court (Justices Sujit Narayan Prasad and Sanjay Prasad) set aside a decree dissolving an eighteen-year-old marriage on the ground of cruelty. The Family Court at Dhanbad had granted the husband a divorce with Rs. 12 lakh permanent alimony; the High Court found that the dramatic allegations — poisoning, boiling water, an attempt to set the husband on fire — rested on assertion and the existence of criminal cases, not on proof.
The case the Family Court accepted
The parties married in 2006 and have two children. The husband's petition under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 painted a grim picture: refusal of conjugal relations, separate living within the same railway quarters, threats, administration of poison, boiling water poured on him, an attempt to set him alight, abusive messages, and a design on his railway job. He pointed to a criminal case against the wife and other proceedings as confirmation. The Family Court at Dhanbad accepted the case in June 2024, dissolved the marriage, and awarded the wife Rs. 12 lakh as permanent alimony.
The wife appealed against the decree; the husband cross-appealed against the alimony alone. The Division Bench reserved judgment at the end of August and pronounced on 30 October 2026.
Why the decree could not stand
The Bench was careful to ring-fence the criminal docket: its judgment records no finding of guilt or innocence in any pending criminal case. The matrimonial record simply failed to prove cruelty, so the decree fell — and with it, the alimony order that presupposed a divorce.
The standard this judgment enforces
Matrimonial courts operate on the civil standard — preponderance of probabilities — but preponderance still requires probative material. Separate living under one roof, the court noted, does not by itself establish cruelty; marriages subsist through estrangements. Nor can the matrimonial forum outsource its fact-finding to the criminal process, in either direction: acquittal does not disprove cruelty, pendency does not prove it, and a decree that rests on the existence of litigation rather than the proof of conduct is built on sand.
The decision pairs instructively with the same Bench's rulings delivered a day earlier, dismissing husbands' appeals where cruelty and desertion were unproved. Together they describe a consistent discipline: whoever seeks the decree proves the ground; whoever resists it is entitled to see the evidence tested, not assumed.
Practical pointers
Grave allegations need grave proof: medical records for injuries, promptly lodged complaints, witnesses with direct knowledge. Build the record contemporaneously, not at trial.
Inventory your own conduct — service records, nominations, passes, remittances — because the other side will read it as an admission of a functioning marriage.
A respondent facing a decree granted on thin evidence should consider a first appeal under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act within the limitation period; appellate benches do re-weigh the record.
Where divorce is set aside, dependent orders — alimony, and arrangements premised on dissolution — fall with it; plan the appellate strategy as a whole.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can a divorce decree be reversed in appeal?
Yes. A first appeal under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 is a rehearing on facts and law. Where the Family Court's finding of cruelty rests on evidence that does not actually prove the alleged acts, the appellate court can — and here did — set the decree aside.
Do pending criminal cases between spouses prove cruelty?
No. The court held that the mere institution of a complaint or criminal proceeding does not establish the truth of the allegations made in it. Criminal cases show that disputes exist; the matrimonial court must still find, on evidence before it, that the alleged acts occurred.
Is a spouse's own testimony enough to prove cruelty?
A bare assertion by the spouse seeking divorce cannot, by itself, be treated as proof of the occurrence alleged. Testimony matters, but on grave allegations courts look for corroboration — medical records, contemporaneous complaints, independent witnesses — before dissolving a marriage.
What happened to the alimony order in this case?
The Family Court had awarded Rs. 12 lakh permanent alimony alongside the divorce, and the husband had appealed only the alimony. Since the divorce itself was set aside, the foundation of the alimony order disappeared and the husband's appeal against it was dismissed.