Hyderabad: The Telangana High Court ruled that a working wife’s failure to cook regularly or assist her mother-in-law does not amount to cruelty and cannot be treated as valid grounds for divorce.
A Division Bench of the Telangana High Court, comprising Justices Mousumi Bhattacharya and Nagesh Bheemapaka, dismissed an appeal filed by a Hyderabad man seeking dissolution of marriage.
Earlier, the appellant, a resident of LB Nagar, approached the High Court after a family court rejected his divorce plea. He alleged that his wife subjected him to cruelty by not cooking regularly. He also claimed that she failed to support his mother and frequently stayed at her parental home.
Court finds no cruelty in wife’s conduct
While hearing the case, the Bench noted that both spouses were employed. The husband worked from 1 pm to 10 pm. Meanwhile, the wife worked from 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Therefore, the court said it was unreasonable to treat her inability to cook in the mornings as cruelty.
The judges also pointed out inconsistencies in the husband’s testimony. For instance, he gave conflicting versions about the period the couple lived together after marriage. At different stages, he claimed it was five months and three months.
Further, the Bench held that the wife staying with her parents after suffering a miscarriage did not amount to cruelty. Instead, the court said such conduct was natural and justified under the circumstances.
On the issue of separate residence, the judges clarified the legal position. They said the Supreme Court had held that insisting on separate living may amount to cruelty in certain cases. However, they added that such findings depend entirely on the facts of each case.
In the present matter, the Bench found that the wife never demanded a separate residence. Rather, her counsel merely suggested such an arrangement during legal proceedings. Hence, the court said it could not treat this as cruelty.
Ultimately, the High Court concluded that the allegations failed to meet the legal threshold for cruelty. Accordingly, it dismissed the appeal and upheld the family court’s order refusing divorce.