Source : INDIA TODAY NEWS
In a significant ruling on marital rights and gender equality, the Bombay High Court held that a wife’s inability or refusal to perform household chores such as cooking and cleaning does not amount to cruelty, observing that “marriage is a partnership of equals and not a service contract.”
A division bench of Justices Bharti Dangre and Manjusha Deshpande set aside a Family Court order that had granted divorce to a chartered accountant (CA) husband on the ground of cruelty. The High Court also directed the husband to pay his estranged wife Rs 20,000 per month as maintenance.
advertisement
The court strongly rejected the husband’s contention that his wife’s alleged failure to cook, clean, or obey his parents constituted mental cruelty.
“Mere failure to perform domestic work such as cooking, cleaning does not automatically amount to cruelty as marriage is a partnership of equals and not a service contract and wives are not ‘deemed maids’,” the bench observed.
The judges further held that the Family Court was not justified in concluding that the husband had proved allegations of cruelty against the wife.
MARRIAGE MARRED BY EARLY DISPUTES
The couple married on February 28, 2002, but disputes reportedly arose within days of the wedding. Though the matter was briefly resolved through mediation in June 2002 and the couple decided to start afresh, the reconciliation was short-lived. On July 7, 2002, the wife left the matrimonial home and began living with her parents.
In 2004, the husband approached the Mumbai Family Court seeking divorce on grounds of cruelty, while the wife filed a plea seeking maintenance. In 2010, the Family Court granted divorce to the husband and dismissed the wife’s maintenance plea, prompting her to challenge the order before the High Court.
HUSBAND ALLEGED MENTAL CRUELTY
The husband alleged that the wife behaved rudely, failed to carry out household work, disobeyed his parents, and was unable to cook. He further claimed that she caused him mental stress by threatening suicide and by filing complaints with the police and other authorities in retaliation against his divorce petition.
The wife, however, denied the allegations and accused the husband and his family of repeatedly demanding dowry, expensive jewellery, and cash despite her parents spending substantially on the marriage. She alleged that she was subjected to harassment, humiliation over trivial matters, and physical assault, which eventually forced her to leave the matrimonial home and lodge complaints.
COURT EMPHASISES FINANCIAL CAPACITY OVER DECLARED INCOME
During the pendency of the proceedings, the Family Court had in 2005 granted the wife interim maintenance, which continued until the case was decided in 2010.
Opposing permanent maintenance, the husband argued that the wife was financially independent as she conducted art classes involving bridal saree decoration, decorative items, drawing, and painting.
However, the High Court ruled that the husband’s financial capacity could not be assessed solely on the basis of income disclosed in tax returns.
The bench observed that as a qualified chartered accountant, the husband possessed substantial earning potential and that courts must consider overall circumstances, professional capability, and standard of living while determining maintenance.
The court also noted the sharp rise in inflation and living expenses over the years, observing that an amount considered reasonable at the interim stage would no longer ensure a dignified life in the present economic scenario.
Accordingly, the High Court enhanced the maintenance amount and directed the husband to pay 20,000 per month to his estranged wife.
– Ends
SOURCE :- TIMES OF INDIA
