Husband Expecting Wife To Do Household Chores Can't Be Termed As Cruelty: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has observed that a husband expecting his wife to do household chores cannot be termed as cruelty.

A division bench comprising Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Neena Bansal Krishna made the observation while dealing with a husband's appeal challenging a family court order rejecting his plea seeking dissolution of marriage on the grounds of cruelty by the wife.

Observing that when the parties enter into wedlock, their intent is to share the responsibilities of future life, the bench said:

“In a catena of decisions, it has already been held that if a married woman is asked to do household work, the same cannot be equated to the work of a maid servant and shall be counted as her love and affection for her family.”

It added: “family. In certain strata, the husband takes over the financial obligations and wife accepts house hold responsibility. Such is the present case. Even if appellant (husband) expected the respondent (wife) to do household chores, it cannot be termed as cruelty.”

The bench set aside the impugned judgment and granted divorce to the husband on the grounds of cruelty by his wife, under Section 13(1) (ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

The parties got married in 2007 and a son was born in 2008. The husband claimed that the marriage was tumultuous since the beginning due to the “quarrelsome and uncompromising conduct” of the wife towards him and his family members.

He further alleged that the wife was reluctant to perform household chores and was not willing to take responsibility.

The wife denied the allegation and claimed that she performed all household chores but the husband and his family were not satisfied.

Allowing the husband's appeal, the bench noted that the husband “bowed to the desires of the wife” and arranged for a separate accommodation to save his matrimonial life.

It further noted that even though she alleged that while she lived in the said accommodation, the husband stayed away most of the time and so, she was constrained to live with her parents.

“Relevantly, the appellant is a member of Force i.e. CISF and he has to be away on duty. The respondent on one pretext or the other abandoned her matrimonial home and lived with her parents. On one hand respondent denied to live with her in-laws and over it, she chose to frequently live with her parents. To nurture the matrimonial bond, it is of high significance that parties live together and avoid leaving each other‟s company frequently,” the court said.

It added that temporary separation gives a sense of insecurity in the mind of a spouse that the other is not willing to continue the matrimonial bond.

The court concluded that the wife had no intention to live in a joint family and to make herself comfortable, left her matrimonial home very frequently to live with her parents.

It added that the husband, on the other hand, by arranging separate accommodations tried his best to keep the wife happy, however, by choosing to stay with her parents, she not only ignored her matrimonial obligations but also deprived the husband of his fatherhood by keeping him away from his son.

Title: X v. Y

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 266