"Wife Not Maid, Marriage Not Service Contract": Court On Man's Divorce Plea

A woman's inability to cook or clean in a marriage cannot be construed as "cruelty", the Bombay High Court said in a significant ruling on gender roles, underlining that a "marriage is a partnership of equals".

The Bombay High Court said "marriage is not a service contract" and a "wife is not a maid" while refusing man's divorce petition on grounds of cruelty.

"Marriage is a partnership of equals. It is not a service contract or an employment agreement, and wives cannot be treated as bonded maids," the court ruled.

A bench comprising Justice Bharati Dangre and Justice Manjusha Deshpande, in a verdict delivered on May 8, held that a wife's refusal to perform daily household chores does not fall within the ambit of "mental cruelty".

"A wife's inability to perform domestic chores - such as cooking or cleaning- cannot, in and of itself, be construed as cruelty," the court said.

The high court set aside the divorce decree issued by the Bandra Family Court in 2010, as well as its decision denying the wife maintenance allowance.

The high court noted that the Family Court had denied maintenance to the woman solely because she had published an advertisement for an 'Art and Craft' class.

"There is no concrete evidence to establish that this activity was generating a regular or substantial independent income for the wife," the court said.

The high court reasoned that the husband is a Chartered Accountant (CA), possessing professional qualifications, and is fully capable of bearing his wife's expenses.

Consequently, the court ordered that the wife be provided with a monthly maintenance allowance of Rs 10,000, in addition to a separate sum of Rs 10,000 per month for accommodation.

What Is The Case?

The couple got married in 2002. The husband alleged that disputes began shortly after the marriage, and within a few months, the wife returned to her parental home.

In 2004, the husband filed a petition for divorce on the grounds of cruelty. The husband claimed that the wife did not perform household chores, disobeyed his parents, did not know how to cook, exhibited a rude demeanour, and subjected him to mental stress.

Refuting the allegations, the wife claimed that she was forcibly made to perform all household chores, including washing dishes and clothes, cooking, and cleaning, and was compelled to eat only leftover food.

The wife's lawyer argued that she was entitled to receive a dignified maintenance allowance and accommodation commensurate with her husband's social status. She was forced to leave the matrimonial home due to harassment by her husband and in-laws, her lawyer argued.

The high court observed that the allegations leveled by the husband against the wife were of a highly "ordinary" nature.

Such differences, the court said, are common during the initial phase of marriage while the couple is in the process of adjusting to one another.

Such 'ordinary bickering' cannot be construed as 'cruelty' by attaching undue significance to it, the court said.

The high court clarified that, in order to prove 'cruelty' under the Hindu Marriage Act, the acts in question must be of such grave severity that it becomes impossible for the other partner to continue living together.

This must involve persistent humiliation, serious behavioural issues, and the leveling of false allegations that serve to tarnish the partner's reputation within society.

The court held that the husband's mother and maternal aunt were "interested witnesses", and the wife could not be proven to be cruel solely on the basis of their testimony.