Asking a married woman to do household work cannot be equated to the work of a help as it shall be counted as her love and affection for her family, the court said. The court also stated that in a marriage, the intent is to share the responsibilities of a future life and the husband expecting his wife to do household chores cannot be termed as cruelty
The court’s observations came while dealing with an appeal by a man against a family court order refusing to dissolve his marriage on the ground of cruelty by his wife
-
Asking a husband to live separately from his family amounts to cruelty by his wife, the Delhi High Court has said.
-
The court also stated that in a marriage, the intent is to share the responsibilities of a future life and the husband expecting his wife to do household chores cannot be termed as cruelty.
-
Asking a married woman to do household work cannot be equated to the work of a help as it shall be counted as her love and affection for her family, it said.
-
The court’s observations came while dealing with an appeal by a man against a family court order refusing to dissolve his marriage on the ground of cruelty by his wife.
-
Asking a husband to live separately from his family amounts to cruelty by his wife, the Delhi High Court has said.
-
The court also stated that in a marriage, the intent is to share the responsibilities of a future life and the husband expecting his wife to do household chores cannot be termed as cruelty.
-
Asking a married woman to do household work cannot be equated to the work of a help as it shall be counted as her love and affection for her family, it said.
-
The court’s observations came while dealing with an appeal by a man against a family court order refusing to dissolve his marriage on the ground of cruelty by his wife.
-
The appellant husband, a CISF member, said he was aggrieved by the respondent wife’s non-contribution in household chores, abandonment of matrimonial home and false implication in criminal cases at her behest.
-
He also alleged that the respondent and her family insisted that he lived separately from his family.
-
A bench headed by Justice Suresh Kumar Kait said that a son has a moral and legal obligation to take care of his aged parents who have no or negligible source of income, and it is not a desirable culture for Hindu son to get separated from his family after marriage.
“In the case of Narendra Vs. K. Meena, it has been observed by the Supreme Court that asking a son to separate from his family amount to cruelty. It was stated that, for a Hindu son in India, it is not a common practice or desirable culture to get separated from his family after marriage,” the bench, also comprising Justice Neena Bansal Krishna, said in a recent order.
“When the parties enter into a wedlock, their intent is to share the responsibilities of future life. In a catena of decisions, it has already been held that 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 household responsibility. Such is the present case. Even if appellant expected the respondent to do household chores, it cannot be termed as cruelty,” the court stated.
-
The court observed that in the present case, the appellant bowed to the desires of respondent and arranged for a separate accommodation to save his matrimonial life but she abandoned the matrimonial home and lived with her parents on one pretext or another.
-
“On one hand respondent denied to live with her in-laws and over it, she chose to frequently live with her parents. To nurture the matrimonial bond, it is of high significance that parties live together and avoid leaving each other’s company frequently. Temporary separation gives a sense of insecurity in the mind of a spouse that the other is not willing to continue the matrimonial bond,” it observed.
-
The court also said while filing of a criminal complaint per-se does not amount to cruelty, grave and uncorroborated allegations amount to cruelty.
-
The court noted that the couple had been living separately since 2010 and the respondent had “no intention to live in joint family and to make herself comfortable”.
-
“The appellant on the other hand by arranging separate accommodation tried his best to keep her happy, however, by choosing to stay with her parents, she has not only ignored her matrimonial obligations but also deprived the appellant of his fatherhood by keeping him away from his son,” it said.
-
“This court is of the considered opinion that appellant has been subjected to cruelty at the hands of respondent-wife. The impugned judgment dated 25.11.2019 is hereby set aside and the appellant is granted divorce under Section 13(1) (ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955,” the court ordered.
Source: Telegraph India
