LI Network
Published on: October 25, 2023 at 18:53 IST
The Chhattisgarh High Court has underscored that within the confines of a matrimonial house, a wife should not be regarded as a hired chattel or bonded labor, compelled to abide by the conditions imposed by her husband.
Justices Goutam Bhaduri and Deepak Kumar Tiwari presided over this noteworthy judgment, which emphasizes the importance of recognizing a wife’s rightful demand to stay with her husband.
The case before the court involved a husband who sought a divorce on the grounds of cruelty, asserting that his wife refused to reside with him in his village.
In contrast, the wife contended that she was always willing to live with her husband, but he insisted that she live separately in his village. She maintained that she did not wish to reside in a rural village due to her husband’s family background.
The husband alleged that his wife frequently made false accusations against him, even filing a police complaint under Section 498-A of the IPC. He further claimed that when he attempted to bring her back, she threatened to commit suicide and imposed conditions on her return.
The Chhattisgarh High Court examined the evidence and concluded that the husband had consistently rejected the wife’s request to stay with him.
The court found fault with the Family Court’s judgment, highlighting that the husband had treated his wife as a chattel and believed she must reside where he dictated.
The High Court emphasized that in the context of a matrimonial relationship, both parties must mutually respect each other and share each other’s company. Imposing conditions forcibly by either spouse could lead to marital discord.
Therefore, if a husband expects his wife to live apart from him without valid cause, it cannot be deemed cruelty on the wife’s part for resisting such a demand.
Ultimately, the Chhattisgarh High Court found that none of the grounds for divorce had been satisfactorily met, either individually or collectively. As a result, the wife’s appeal was allowed, and the Family Court’s judgment in favor of the husband’s divorce application was set aside.