'You’re not marrying a maid,' says Supreme Court, stresses shared household duties
The Bench underlined that social norms have evolved and that domestic responsibilities must be shared.
The Bench underlined that social norms have evolved and that domestic responsibilities must be shared.
The Bench underlined that social norms have evolved and that domestic responsibilities must be shared.
The Supreme Court on Friday observed that inadequate performance of household chores by a wife cannot, on its own, constitute cruelty in a matrimonial dispute. The Bench underlined that social norms have evolved and that domestic responsibilities must be shared. “You're not marrying a maid, you're marrying a life partner”, remarked Justice Sandeep Mehta.
“You have to contribute to this cooking, washing, etc. Today's times are different”, added Justice Vikram Nath. The Court directed both parties to appear in person at the next hearing. Earlier, it had referred the matter for mediation, but the attempt did not succeed.
According to the case details, the couple married in 2017 and has an eight-year-old son. The husband works as a government school teacher, while the wife is a lecturer. During the proceedings, it was submitted that the wife is financially better placed and has not sought maintenance or alimony so far.
The husband initiated divorce proceedings, claiming that the wife’s behaviour had changed within a week of the marriage. He alleged that she used abusive language towards him and his parents, refused to cook for the family, and did not invite him to the child’s cradle ceremony.
The wife contested these claims, stating that she had gone to her parental home for childbirth with the consent of her husband and his family. She alleged that they failed to attend the cradle ceremony and demanded cash and gold from her parents. She also claimed that she was compelled to hand over her salary.
The Family Court had earlier granted a divorce on the grounds of cruelty. However, the High Court later set aside the order. Challenging this decision, the husband moved the Supreme Court.
(With LiveLaw Inputs)