‘Regressive mindset’ that women must do all household work should change: Bombay HC rejects divorce plea
The High Court dismissed an appeal by a 35-year-old man from Pune, who challenged the March 2018 verdict of the Family Court that dismissed his plea for dissolution of marriage with his 33-year-old estranged-wife.
The man, who alleged cruelty by the estranged wife, had claimed that the two, who are working persons, have been living apart for about 10 years and there is irretrievable breakdown of marriage. However, the court said that the case to dissolve the marriage was not made out by the appellant man. (File) “Expecting a wife to do all the household work reflects a regressive mindset, and in modern society the burden of household responsibilities have to be borne by both husband and wife equally, and primitive mindset needs to undergo a positive change,” the Bombay High Court observed.
The HC dismissed an appeal by a 35-year-old man from Pune, who challenged the March–2018 verdict of the Family Court that dismissed his plea for dissolution of marriage with his 33-year-old estranged wife. The man, who alleged cruelty by the estranged wife, had claimed that the two, who are both working persons, have been living apart for about 10 years, and there is irretrievable breakdown of marriage. However, the court said the case to dissolve the marriage was not made out by the appellant man.
The man had alleged cruelty by claiming that his wife was constantly on the phone with her mother and not doing any household work, and that on most occasions the appellant had to leave for office without food. He further alleged that the respondent wife, upon being asked to conduct herself in a proper manner by his parents, would abuse them.
A division bench of Justice Nitin W Sambre and Justice Sharmila U Deshmukh on September 6 rejected the man’s appeal man argued through advocate AP Singh. The couple married in 2010 as per Hindu Vedic rites in Bihar, and after coming to Pune registered the marriage under Special Marriage Act in March, 2011.
It was also alleged that in 2011, the respondent wife abused him for not attending her father’s house warming puja due to his work commitment, and in a fit of anger had squeezed his neck and scratched his face with her nails.
The appellant alleged that in 2012, when he went to his bedroom to sleep, the wife and her mother kicked him out of the bed, called the building’s security guard and had him thrown out of the house. He also alleged that his mother in law slapped him before the guard and instigated her daughter to not keep quiet and to break his head with a cooker.
Moreover, the next year, as per the appellant, when he went to meet his wife and their recently born child, he was not allowed to meet the infant, and she constantly abused him, which he bore silently for the child’s sake. The wife’s brother came to the appellants house and the wife and her mother left the house, taking all their belongings, and in March–2013, the wife lodged a police complaint. It was also argued that while he and his father have tried to reconcile, the wife’s father abused them, and her maternal uncle threatened him, causing mental and physical cruelty to the appellant.
Advocate Amey D Deshpande for the wife opposed the plea and claimed it to be non-maintainable. Deshpande said, instead the respondent wife had been subjected to mental and physical cruelty at the hands of appellant.
The HC observed that the appellant had cited three alleged isolated incidents, but ‘cruelty generally does not consist of isolated acts but a series of acts over a period of time.”
“The primitive mindset expecting the woman of the house to solely shoulder the household responsibilities needs to undergo a positive change. Also, the marital relationship cannot result in isolating the respondent-wife from her parents, and she cannot be expected to sever all ties with her parents after marriage,” Justice Deshmukh noted for the bench.
“Being in contact with one’s parents cannot by any stretch of imagination be construed as inflicting mental agony on the other party. In our view, putting restrictions on the respondent to curtail her contact with her parents, has in fact, subjected the respondent to mental cruelty, apart from physical cruelty which has been established,” the HC held while dismissing the appeal.
Share
