The Bombay High Court (HC) on Friday dismissed a petition of a Mumbai-based man who wanted to divorce his wife because "she did not cook tasty food and abuses her in-laws when they try to wake her up from sleep".
The man approached the HC after a family court dismissed his divorce petition, which had been filed on similar grounds there.
The woman denied the allegations in HC and stated that her husband and in-laws have been ill-treating her. It has to be noted that the man had challenged the decision of the family court which had denied him a divorce.
The Bombay HC ruling
A Bombay HC bench of Justices KK Tated and Sarang Kotwal was quoted by PTI as saying that the allegations leveled by the man didn't amount to any cruelty and therefore could not be grounds for divorce.
The man had, as part of his petition in the HC, submitted his father's statement which supported his allegations. He also said his wife would get back from work around 6 pm, after which she took a nap and then cooked food only by 8:30 pm.
"She did not cook tasty and sufficient food and she never spent quality time with me. On days that I returned late from work, she would not even offer me a glass of water," he said.
Wife denied to all allegations
The wife produced evidence in the form of statements from their neighbors who said they found her be busy with household work whenever they visited the house.
She added that she left home in the morning only after she had cooked food for the entire family.
She also said that it was her husband and her parents who ill-treated her.
Court rules in woman's favor
The court observed that the woman was expected to do quite a lot of work. "One can't lose sight of the fact that the respondent herself was a working woman who, in addition to her job, had the additional task of cooking each morning and evening, of buying vegetables, and groceries on her way home from work," the bench said.
The court also said: "It is further the Appellant's (petitioner) case that when he used to return home late, the respondent failed to cook well, or take care of his needs. That again cannot amount to cruelty."
The bench also upheld the lower court's order, saying: "The learned Family Court judge also rightly criticised the appellant for expecting a glass of water to be offered to him each time by the respondent."
It concluded: "Thus, taking overall view of the matter, we do not find any merit in the appeal. Consequently, the appeal is dismissed."
