The Delhi High Court granted divorce to a man while underscoring the delicate balance of responsibilities within a marital relationship.
The court allowed the appeal of the husband seeking divorce on grounds of cruelty under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (HMA). The bench comprising Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Neena Bansal Krishna, held, “If a married woman is asked to do household work, the same cannot be equated to the work of a maid servant and shall be counted as her love and affection for her family. In certain strata, the husband takes over the financial obligations and wife accepts house hold responsibility. Such is the present case. Even if appellant expected the respondent to do household chores, it cannot be termed as cruelty”.
The crux of the matter lay in the expectations surrounding household duties within the marriage. The court emphasised that while disputes arose between the parties after their marriage on March 30, 2007, and the birth of their child on February 02, 2008, expecting a spouse to fulfil household chores cannot be deemed as cruelty. This stance underscores the principle that marriage involves sharing responsibilities and affection, with each partner contributing according to their abilities and circumstances.
Advocate Jatin Mongia represented the husband, while Advocate Hemant Kumar Srivastava appeared for the wife.
The husband’s case rested on allegations of a tumultuous marriage characterised by the wife’s quarrelsome behaviour, refusal to contribute to household chores, threats of suicide, and false accusations. However, the wife rejected these claims, instead accusing the man’s family of demanding dowry and subjecting her to acts of cruelty.
The court’s verdict reflects a nuanced understanding of marital dynamics, particularly in cases where one spouse assumes financial responsibilities while the other manages household affairs. The bench underscored that expecting a spouse to engage in household work should not be equated with treating them as a maid but rather as an expression of love and commitment to the family. This perspective acknowledges the diverse socio-economic contexts in which marriages operate and recognises the importance of mutual understanding and cooperation.
The HC observed that marital conflicts emerged soon after the marriage, with the wife displaying reluctance to reside in a joint family and often opting to stay with her parents. Despite the husband’s attempts to address this by arranging separate living arrangements, she persisted in staying with her parents, disregarding her obligations within the marriage and preventing the husband from fulfilling his role as a father by keeping him away from his son.
The court also reiterated that instances of cruelty should not be considered individually but rather as the cumulative effect of facts and circumstances presented in the evidence. A fair conclusion regarding whether one spouse has endured mental cruelty due to the actions of the other spouse must be derived from this assessment. The court further emphasised the principle that expecting a spouse to fulfil household chores cannot be construed as cruelty, but rather as an integral aspect of marital life.
Accordingly, the HC opined that the appellant was subjected to cruelty at the hands of the respondent-wife and set aside the impugned judgement.
Comments
0 comment