The Bombay High Court recently comprising of a bench of Justices Atul Chandurkar and Urmila Joshi-Phalke held that a wife expressing a desire to work does not amount to cruelty under the Hindu Marriage Act. (Pundlik Martandrao Yevatkar v. Sau. Ujwala @ Shubhangi Pundlik Yevatkar)
The bench was dealing with an appeal against the family court's refusal to grant divorce to the husband on the ground that cruelty is not proven.
Facts of the case
The husband had filed a petition before the Family court dissolution of marriage, whereas the wife, a teacher, had filed a plea seeking restitution of conjugal rights. The Family court ruled in favour of the wife which was challenged by the husband before the HC.
The impugned order relates to a petition filed seeking dissolution of marriage on two grounds i.e., cruelty and desertion under Section 13(1)(ia) and 13(1)(ib) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The petition for dissolution of marriage is preferred mainly on the allegation that the wife had treated him with cruelty after marriage. As per the allegation of the appellant/husband, the respondent/wife who had completed her postgraduation in English and expressed her desire to do the job.
Issue before the Court
i) Whether the petition for dissolution of marriage is liable to be allowed on the ground of cruelty as pleaded in the petition.
ii) Whether the appellant/husband proves that the respondent/wife intentionally abandoned him without a reasonable cause.
iii) Whether the judgment and decree of the restitution of conjugal rights passed by the trial Court and dismissal of the divorce petition calls for any interference.
Contention of the Parties
The husband had alleged that wife deserted him by returning to her parent's house since she wanted to work. After going through the statements of the witnesses, the court said there was no effort on the part of the husband to bring her back.
However, the wife contended that she was forced to leave due to harassment by her husband, her in-laws and sister-in-law since they suspected her character.
Court's observations and Judgment
The bench observed, "The Court further added that the appellant-husband had not quoted any single incident to show that since the marriage till the birth of the child there was some quarrel between them on account of desire of the respondent/wife regarding doing the job. The only allegation of the husband was that the wife was harassing him by expressing that she wants to do the job."
The bench dismissing the appeal remarked, "After giving thoughtful consideration to the controversy we are of the view that the appellant/husband failed to prove the ground of cruelty to obtain a decree of dissolution of marriage. The manner in which the appellant/husband faced cruelty is not proved. Mere annoyance or irritation or normal wear or tear differences does not constitute cruelty. The cruelty should be such in which it is not reasonably accepted to live together. The appellant/husband has not proved the desertion by the respondent/wife.
Merely because the respondent/wife staying separately an inference of desertion cannot be drawn. The marriage between the parties cannot be dissolved on the averments made by one of the parties that the marriage between them has broken down. The irretrievable breakdown of the marriage is not a ground by itself to dissolve it. As regards the allegation made by the appellant/husband are not believable. As observed earlier except the ground enumerated under Section 13 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 the marriage solemnized under the Act cannot be dissolved on any other ground.
In the light of the above discussion we are unable to accept the contention of the appellant/husband, hence no ground is made out to interfere with the findings of the Family Court."
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
