In a significant ruling that underscores the evolving dynamics of modern marriages, the Telangana High Court has dismissed a husband's appeal seeking divorce from his wife. The court held that a wife's inability to cook for her husband or coordinate household duties with her mother-in-law, due to conflicting professional schedules, does not amount to mental cruelty.
Court Upholds Family Court's Decision
A bench comprising Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya and Justice Nagesh Bheemapaka delivered the judgment, upholding an earlier order from a family court that refused to dissolve the marriage. The couple, who tied the knot in May 2015, had been living separately since October 2018. Their separation followed domestic discord and was compounded by a medical complication—a miscarriage suffered by the wife in 2017.
In its order, the high court firmly reiterated that 'trivial irritations' and the 'normal wear and tear' of married life cannot be valid grounds for seeking divorce. The court emphasized that the institution of marriage requires resilience and understanding beyond minor everyday conflicts.
Demanding Schedules Take Center Stage
Justice Bheemapaka, writing the order for the bench, meticulously examined the husband's primary complaint: that his wife failed to discharge household responsibilities. The husband, a law graduate from Secunderabad, alleged that his wife, a technology professional from LB Nagar, neither cooked for him nor cooperated with his mother in daily chores.
However, the court took decisive note of the couple's demanding and overlapping work routines. The evidence revealed that the husband worked from 1 pm to 10 pm, returning home around 11 pm. In contrast, the wife worked from 9 am to 6 pm, waking at 6 am and leaving home by 9 am.
Given these circumstances, the judge ruled that her inability to prepare food for her husband could not be viewed seriously or construed as an act of cruelty. The bench also recorded a crucial admission from the husband during cross-examination: he acknowledged that his wife had previously assisted his mother in the kitchen and interacted cordially with the family during their time living together.
Defining the Threshold for Mental Cruelty
The judgment provided important clarifications on what constitutes mental cruelty in matrimonial law. The court held that a mother-in-law's grievance about a daughter-in-law not assisting with household duties does not, by itself, meet the high legal threshold required to prove mental cruelty.
Addressing another serious allegation, the court examined the husband's arrest under Section 498-A of the IPC (cruelty by husband or his relatives). The judge pointed out that the complaint was filed by the wife's father, not by the wife herself. Therefore, this action could not be attributed to the wife as an act of harassment against her husband.
Furthermore, the court found the wife's stay at her parental home justified. This was in view of her need for medical recovery following the miscarriage, a period requiring care and support.
The bench made a pivotal observation: mental cruelty must be of a persistent and sustained nature over a long period. The court concluded that the standard was not met in this case. Finding no illegality or perversity in the family court's original decision, the judges dismissed the appeal, leaving the marriage intact.
