In Matrimonial House Wife Can’t Be Treated As A Chattel Or Bonded Labour To Stay On Husband's Conditions: Chhattisgarh HC

The bench also opined if the husband expects the wife to stay at a place other than his company, without any sufficient cause, and if the wife resists his demand, it would be not cruelty by the wife.

The bench of Justice Goutam Bhaduri and Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari observed thus while noting that it is a natural and rightful demand of the wife from her husband to keep her with him.

With this, the bench allowed an appeal filed by a wife against the judgment and decree passed by a Family Court allowing the application filed by the husband under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

The facts in brief

The parties got married in May 2008 and the lady delivered a baby girl in July 2009. It was the case of the husband, that he wanted her to reside with him in his village Barduli, but she did not accept the said proposal and therefore, he sought a divorce on the grounds of cruelty and the same was allowed by the Family Court.

On the other hand, it was the contention of the wife in the appeal that she was always willing to reside in the company of the husband but he never wanted to keep her with him and wanted her to reside separately at Village Barduli.

It was the wife's stand that she used to resist his demand to live in his village as his husband belonged to a rural background and from the very beginning, she wanted to keep herself away from his family and was not willing to reside in a village.

In the appeal, the husband submitted that his Appellant/wife was in the habit of making false allegations and she had also made a police complaint against the Respondent/husband for the offence under Section 498-A of the IPC.

He further submitted that whenever he tried to bring her back, she always threatened to commit suicide and even in the social meeting, she imposed a condition that if someone took responsibility for her life, then only she would return and join the company of the Respondent/husband.

High Court’s observations

Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case and the evidence adduced by the parties, the Court noted that from the very beginning, the husband did not accept the request of the Appellant/wife to keep her with himself.

Noting that the husband always treated her as chattel and thought that she was bound to live in such a place where he wanted to keep her, the Court, finding faults with the Family Court's judgment, observed thus:

“The Appellant/wife is not willing to reside at Village Barduli and wants to reside along with her husband, therefore, we are of the view that only on this issue, the dispute between both the parties exists and the trial Court has not appreciated the evidence in its proper perspective.”

Further stressing that in the matrimonial house, the wife should not be treated as hired chattel or a bonded labour to stay under the conditions imposed by the husband.

“During the matrimonial ties, the reciprocal respect and regard to each other and the company is necessary. In absence thereof any forceful imposition of condition by either side may lead to a matrimonial disruption. So if the husband expects the wife to stay at a place other than his company without any sufficient cause it cannot be stated that because of resistance by the wife to stay apart-it would be a cruelty by wife,” the Bench remarked.

Consequently, the Court concluded that none of the grounds had been satisfied individually or collectively to entitle the Respondent/husband to claim a decree of divorce. Hence, the Appeal was allowed and the impugned judgment passed by the Family Court, Bemetara was set aside.