Working wife’s schedule, mother-in-law’s complaint, parents’ intervention not ‘cruelty’: Telangana HC rejects divorce plea

The division bench comprising Justices Moushumi Bhattacharya and Nagesh Bheemapaka on Monday dismissed the appeal filed against the family court’s denial of grant of divorce

The Telangana High Court has dismissed an appeal filed by a man seeking divorce on grounds of mental cruelty, affirming that ordinary matrimonial friction and independent work schedules do not constitute legal grounds for dissolving a marriage.

The couple, married in May 2015, had been living apart since October 2018 following a series of disputes and filed the original petition for divorce in 2019, citing cruelty. The appellant-husband alleged that his wife exhibited cruel behaviour by failing to cooperate in household chores, frequently staying at her parents’ house, and pressuring him to live separately from his parents. He further contended that her father had filed a criminal case against him under Section 498 A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), leading to his illegal arrest and subsequent loss of employment.

The respondent-wife’s counsel contended that she is a working woman who sincerely attempted to balance her professional obligations and matrimonial responsibilities, and that her inability to devote herself exclusively to household chores cannot be construed as cruelty. The counsel further submitted that her pregnancy complications and subsequent abortion were unfortunate medical events, and the attempt of the appellant to attribute blame to the respondent or her family is both insensitive and baseless.

However, the high court found the husband’s allegations insufficient. Regarding the domestic disputes, it noted that both parties are employed and have demanding schedules. The husband’s office hours were from 1 pm to 11 pm, while the wife worked from 9 am to 6 pm. The court observed that the complaint by the man’s mother that her daughter-in-law was not cooperating with her in household duties cannot be termed as “cruelty” towards the mother-in-law.

Addressing the husband’s complaint about his wife not preparing food, the court remarked: “When the petitioner used to come home by 11 pm and go to office by 1 pm, and the respondent wakes up by 6 am and goes to office by 9 am, not preparing food by her for her husband cannot be seen seriously and it cannot be termed as cruelty.”

The bench also noted that the husband himself admitted in cross-examination that his wife assisted his mother in the kitchen during the time they lived together. Furthermore, the court ruled that the wife’s stay at her parental home following a miscarriage in 2017 could not be termed as desertion or cruelty.

On the issue of the husband’s arrest, the court clarified that the complaint was lodged by the wife’s father, not the wife herself, and therefore could not be attributed to her as an act of harassment. Additionally, it observed that the suggestion for a separate residence came from the counsel during legal cross-examination rather than as a direct demand from the wife.

Finding no illegality in the lower court’s decision, the high court dismissed the appeal, concluding that the husband failed to prove his claims.