MUMBAI<\/em>: The Bombay High Court<\/a><\/strong> has held that a wife cannot be treated as a domestic servant and cannot be compelled to perform household chores as a legal obligation of marriage.<\/p>\n\n\n\n A Division Bench<\/strong> comprising Justice Bharati Dangre <\/strong>and Justice Manjusha Deshpande<\/strong> set aside a Family Court order that had granted divorce to a chartered accountant husband and denied maintenance to his wife.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The couple married in 2002. Soon after the marriage, the husband approached the court seeking divorce on the ground of mental cruelty. He alleged that his wife was unable to cook properly, was rude and disobedient<\/strong>, did not perform household work satisfactorily, and caused him mental stress. According to him, these actions amounted to cruelty under matrimonial law.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The wife denied all allegations and claimed that she was made to perform all household duties, including cooking, cleaning and washing utensils. She further alleged that she was even forced to eat leftover food in the matrimonial home.<\/p>\n\n\n\n While deciding the matter, the High Court observed that<\/p>\n\n\n\n “Marriage is a partnership of equals and not a service contract”<\/em><\/strong>.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n The Bench further held that:<\/p>\n\n\n\n “Mere failure of wife to do chores such as cooking, cleaning does not automatically amount to cruelty as marriage is a partnership of equals and not a service contract and the wives are not deemed maids.”<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n The Court noted that ordinary disagreements, adjustment issues and differences arising during the early years of marriage should not be unnecessarily converted into allegations of cruelty. It emphasized that household expectations alone cannot become grounds for dissolution of marriage.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The High Court also overturned the Family Court’s finding that the wife was financially independent<\/strong>. The lower court had relied upon an advertisement issued by the wife for art and craft classes to conclude that she could earn on her own. The High Court disagreed and held that occasional or small-scale activities cannot be treated as proof of stable and sufficient income.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Accordingly, the Court directed the husband to pay maintenance of \u20b920,000 per month<\/strong> to the wife and restored her maintenance rights.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Clarifying the legal position on mental cruelty, the Bench observed that cruelty must involve serious conduct that causes humiliation, emotional suffering, or makes continuation of the marital relationship impossible<\/strong>. The judgment referred to examples such as abusive language, public humiliation, false allegations and restrictions on personal freedom as circumstances that may amount to mental cruelty.<\/p>\n\n\n\n <\/p>\n\n\n\n <\/p>\n\n\n\n\n
\n
Explanatory Table Of Laws And Sections<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
LAW \/ SECTION<\/strong><\/td> PURPOSE<\/strong><\/td> RELEVANCE IN THIS CASE<\/strong><\/td><\/tr> Section 13(1)(ia), Hindu Marriage Act<\/a>, 1955<\/strong><\/td> Divorce on ground of cruelty<\/td> Husband sought divorce alleging mental cruelty by wife<\/td><\/tr> Hindu Marriage Act, 1955<\/strong><\/td> Governs marriage and divorce among Hindus<\/td> Main law under which divorce petition was filed<\/td><\/tr> Section 18, Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance <\/a>Act, 1956<\/strong><\/td> Right of wife to claim maintenance while living separately under lawful circumstances<\/td> Wife claimed maintenance under this provision<\/td><\/tr> Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956<\/strong><\/td> Governs maintenance rights of Hindu dependants and spouses<\/td> Basis of wife’s maintenance claim<\/td><\/tr> Rajnesh v. Neha & Another, (2021) 2 SCC 324<\/strong><\/td> Supreme Court guidelines on maintenance and income disclosure<\/td> Relied upon by High Court while assessing earning capacity and maintenance entitlement<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n Case Details<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
\n
\n
Key Takeaways<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
\n