Marriage is a partnership of equals, not service contract: HC

Justices Bharati Dangre and Majusha Deshpande said ordinary domestic disagreements did not meet the legal threshold for cruelty under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955

MUMBAI: A wife’s inability or refusal to perform household chores such as cooking and cleaning does not amount to cruelty under law, the Bombay High Court has ruled, stating that marriage is “a partnership of equals” and not a “service contract”.

Marriage is a partnership of equals, not service contract: HC

Setting aside a Bandra family court 2010 order that had granted divorce to a Malad-based man, a division bench of justices Bharati Dangre and Majusha Deshpande said ordinary domestic disagreements did not meet the legal threshold for cruelty under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

“For grant of divorce on the ground of cruelty, the actions complained of must be severe and cause extreme mental or physical violence rather than ordinary household disagreements,” the court said.

It added that allegations such as not cooking, not doing household work, being rude to in-laws or frequently visiting parents were part of the “normal wear and tear” of married life and could not justify dissolution of marriage.

The high court’s May 8 judgment came in an appeal filed by a woman from Cotton Green challenging a July 2010 family court decree dissolving her marriage.

The couple got married in February 2002, according to Hindu rites. Disputes arose within days of cohabitation, though they briefly reconciled through mediation in June 2002. However, the wife left the matrimonial home the following month and began living with her parents.

Two years later, the husband filed a divorce petition on the grounds of cruelty, contending that his wife behaved improperly with him and his parents, was rude and disobedient toward his parents, did not do household work, could not cook, and frequently visited her parents.

The wife opposed the plea and sought maintenance and residential accommodation under the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, alleging harassment and dowry demands by the husband’s family.

The family court had accepted the husband’s allegations of cruelty and granted divorce, while rejecting the wife’s plea. Challenging the family court’s order, the wife approached the high court.

The high court said the allegations were neither proved nor grave enough to constitute cruelty under the Hindu Marriage Act. The bench also noted that the couple had lived together for only around four months, making it difficult to conclude that cohabitation had become impossible.

“In our view, to invoke the ground of cruelty, there must be a consistent apprehension in the mind of a spouse that the continued cohabitation has become so unbearable, making it impossible to live with the other spouse,” the bench said.

Allowing the woman’s appeal, the high court struck down the divorce order and also held that the woman, as a legally wedded wife, was entitled to maintenance and directed the husband, a chartered accountant, to pay her ₹20,000 per month towards maintenance and residential accommodation.