Barring wife from kitchen is mental cruelty: HC

The court pronounced this judgment while hearing a case filed by a woman residing in Akola against her husband who resides in Nagpur

NAGPUR: The Nagpur bench of the Bombay High Court (HC) underscored that cooking is not merely a routine domestic task but an expression of a woman’s dignity, identity and her rightful place within the matrimonial home. In a significant ruling last week, the court held that denying a woman access to her own kitchen constitutes mental cruelty, striking at the very heart of her fundamental rights and dignity.

Barring wife from kitchen is mental cruelty: HC

The court pronounced this judgment while hearing a case filed by a woman residing in Akola against her husband who resides in Nagpur. She alleged that she was mentally tortured by him and her mother-in-law, and that her husband prevented her from entering the kitchen, which compelled her to move back to her parental home.

Delivering the judgment, Justice Urmila Joshi-Phalke of the bench observed that the allegations against the Nagpur-based husband disclosed a clear prima facie case of cruelty. “She was not even allowed to enter the kitchen and was asked to bring food from outside,” the court noted, adding that such treatment was sufficient to infer mental cruelty.

In her complaint filed from Akola soon after her marriage on November 29, 2022, the woman alleged that she was subjected to repeated harassment. According to her complaint, her husband frequently picked quarrels, restricted her movements, and prevented her from visiting her parental home. She further claimed that she was barred from cooking, forced to procure food from outside, humiliated, and pressured to seek a divorce, with even her belongings allegedly thrown out of the house.

Following her complaint, an FIR was registered against both the husband and his mother in 2024. Challenging the FIR, the husband contended that the case was a “counterblast” to his divorce petition and based on general, unsubstantiated allegations. However, the prosecution and the complainant argued that the charges clearly pointed to sustained mental cruelty.

After hearing both sides, the court sided with the prosecution, noting that the allegations against the husband were specific and indicative of wilful conduct causing mental harm.

Clarifying the legal position, the court reiterated that cruelty under Section 498A includes any wilful conduct likely to drive a woman to suicide or cause grave injury or danger to her life, limb, or mental health.

Partly allowing the husband’s plea, the court permitted criminal proceedings against him to continue, while quashing the FIR on related proceedings against the mother-in-law, as the woman’s claims were not substantiated.