Wife wanting to go for work after marriage not cruelty: Bombay High Court denies divorce to husband

In a significant ruling, the Nagpur bench of the Bombay High Court has held that if a wife expresses a desire to go for work, it would not amount to cruelty under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act [Pundlik Yevatkar vs Ujwala @ Shubhangi Yevatkar]..A bench of Justices Atul Chandurkar and Urmila Joshi-Phalke was hearing a husband's plea seeking divorce claiming that his wife often quarrelled with him as she wanted to go for work and, thus, had threatened him that she wouldn't beget a child till she secures a job."In the present case, expressing desire by wife who is well qualified that she wants to do the job does not amount to cruelty. The husband has to make out a specific case that the conduct of wife was such a nature that it was difficult for him to lead the life along with her. The husband had not adduced the evidence regarding the time and manner in which he was harassed. The allegations made by him falls under routine wear and tear in the nature. The marital life should be access as a whole and few isolated instances over a certain period will not amounts to cruelty," the Court observed in the order pronounced on Tuesday..The bench further noted that another ground of cruelty as alleged by the husband was that his wife had aborted her pregnancy without his consent. The Court, however, noted that the wife had refused to take tuition classes owing to her pregnancy and, thus, she was prepared to take the responsibility of the child. All the same it is her prerogative on whether or not to continue with pregnancy, the Court made it clear. "It is well settled that the right of a woman to have reproductive choice is an insegregable part of her personal liberty as envisaged under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Admittedly, she cannot be forced to give birth to a child," the bench underscored. .Further, it noted that the other ground for divorce, raised by the husband was of desertion. He claimed that the wife had left his house within four years of their marriage and, thus, deserted him. The bench, however, noted that there weren't much efforts on the husband's part to bring her back to the matrimonial house."There is no evidence to show that the wife was desiring to end the relationship permanently. If the husband's contention is accepted that she left the matrimonial house to fulfill her desire to do the job, admittedly, she was not doing any job when she left the matrimonial house. In fact, she got a job in one Ashram Shala after three years of leaving the house. Therefore, his contention that she left the matrimonial house to fulfill her desire is not sustainable. The contention of the wife appears more probable that she was constrained to leave the matrimonial house as her character was suspected," the bench opined. .The bench further added that mere annoyance or irritation or normal wear or tear differences does not constitute cruelty. The husband, in the instant case, the judges opined has not proved the desertion by the wife. "Merely because she was staying separately an inference of desertion cannot be drawn. The marriage between the parties cannot be dissolved on the averments made by one of the parties that the marriage between them has broken down. The irretrievable breakdown of the marriage is not a ground by itself to dissolve it. Except the ground enumerated under Section 13 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 the marriage solemnized under the Act cannot be dissolved on any other ground," the judges concluded. With these observations, the bench dismissed the husband's plea seeking divorce. .Advocate RG Kavimandan appeared for the Husband.Advocate DS Khushlani represented the Wife. .[Read Judgment]