A spouse who loses the divorce case in the Family Court and again in the High Court faces a narrow road in the Supreme Court: Article 136 does not exist to retry facts. Mamta Devi v. Sanjay Kumar, decided on 10 April 2026 (2026 INSC 346, Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta), illustrates both that narrowness and its counterweight. The Court affirmed the dissolution of a two-decade marriage on concurrent findings of cruelty and desertion — and, in the same breath, directed the husband to pay monthly maintenance, because the end of the marriage is not the end of the financial obligation.
The litigation in brief
The parties married at Bokaro in February 2002; a son was born in 2003 and a daughter in 2005. After early years with the husband's parents, the couple lived separately with the children from around 2007. Each side accused the other: the wife alleged dowry-related harassment and claimed she was portrayed as mentally unstable and driven from the home; the husband alleged insistence on separate living, abuse of his parents and continuous harassment. Cross-complaints were filed. The husband's divorce petition under Section 13(1)(ia) and (ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act succeeded in the Family Court in November 2022, and the wife's first appeal was dismissed by the Jharkhand High Court in October 2023. She then reached the Supreme Court by special leave.
Concurrent findings and the Article 136 threshold
The appeal failed on the decree because it had nowhere to go: two courts had weighed the oral evidence — including the testimony of the parties' own son — and returned consistent findings of cumulative cruelty and withdrawal from society without reasonable cause. The Supreme Court found those conclusions factual, evidence-based and free of perversity, and declined to reappreciate them. To this the Court added the reality check that increasingly accompanies such affirmances: the parties had lived apart since 2018, and the bond had "broken down beyond repair". The separation was not itself the ground of divorce — the statutory grounds were cruelty and desertion, concurrently proved — but its length confirmed that nothing remained for the law to preserve.
For litigants weighing an SLP in a matrimonial matter: the question is rarely whether the High Court could have seen the evidence differently; it is whether the findings are perverse or the process legally flawed. Where neither can be shown, the realistic objective in the Supreme Court shifts from saving the marriage to securing the financial terms on which it ends.
The maintenance direction
That shift is exactly what the judgment delivers. The Family Court had softened the decree with a lump-sum of ₹6,00,000. The Supreme Court went further, directing ₹10,000 per month from the date of its order, grounded in the need for continued financial support and the Court's duty to do complete justice between the parties. Three features deserve attention.
Support survives the decree
Dissolution answers status; it does not answer dependency. A former wife without adequate means remains entitled to support, and appellate courts can recalibrate the form it takes.
Monthly beats lump-sum where need is continuing
A one-time sum erodes; a monthly direction tracks the dependency it answers. Courts choose the form on the parties' circumstances, and here the continuing form prevailed.
Conduct findings did not bar relief
The wife lost on cruelty and desertion yet obtained a maintenance direction — confirming that alimony is assessed on need and means, not awarded as a prize for the decree.
Takeaways for practice
For respondents defending a decree in the Supreme Court: protect the findings, but come prepared on maintenance, because the Court will often close the case by fixing the financial endgame. For appellants: plead the maintenance case fully in the SLP itself — income, needs, what the lump-sum below actually covers — since that is where discretionary relief realistically lies. And for both: undertakings and conduct recorded earlier in the marriage, like the 2017 undertaking here, have long evidentiary lives; documents created to settle a quarrel can decide a divorce years later.
Note: this article summarises a judgment of the Supreme Court of India for general information. It is not legal advice, and it does not relate to any matter handled by this chamber.
Frequently Asked Questions
What were the courts' findings against the appellant-wife?
The Family Court at Bokaro found cruelty and desertion established, noting quarrels over trivial issues and the appellant's conduct towards the respondent and the children. The Jharkhand High Court additionally relied on her 2017 written undertaking to maintain cordial relations, the adult son's testimony supporting the cruelty allegations, and her own statement that she did not want the children with her, concluding she had withdrawn from the respondent's society without reasonable cause.
Why did the Supreme Court not interfere with the divorce?
Because the findings were concurrent, factual and supported by evidence, with no perversity shown. The Court also noted that the parties had lived apart since 2018 and that the matrimonial bond had broken down beyond repair, with no possibility of resuming cohabitation. Article 136 jurisdiction is not a third round of fact-finding.
What maintenance had been awarded below, and what changed?
The Family Court had ordered a lump-sum payment of ₹6,00,000. The Supreme Court, citing the need for continued financial support and complete justice, directed the respondent to pay the appellant ₹10,000 per month from the date of its order — converting a one-time cushion into a continuing obligation.
Does a wife against whom cruelty is proved lose maintenance?
Not automatically. The ground on which the marriage is dissolved and the former wife's entitlement to support are distinct questions. Permanent alimony under Section 25 HMA is available to either spouse "whether defendant or plaintiff", and courts assess need and means rather than treating the decree as a disqualification — as this very case demonstrates.