In a recent ruling, the Chhattisgarh High Court emphasised that within a matrimonial household, a wife should not be treated as mere property or forced into conditions dictated by her husband. This important observation came as the Court dismissed allegations of desertion and cruelty made by a husband against his wife in the case of Kalyani Bai v Tejnath.
Justices Goutam Bhaduri and Deepak Kumar Tiwari found that it was, in fact, the husband who had been insisting on his wife staying in his village, ignoring her genuine requests to reside together elsewhere. The Court highlighted that it is entirely reasonable and well within a wife's rights to request to stay with her husband. However, in this case, the husband consistently rejected her genuine requests, treating her as a possession and assuming that she must live wherever he dictated. The Court firmly stated, ‘It is well established that within the matrimonial home, a wife should not be considered a hired chattel or treated as bonded labour to live under conditions imposed by the husband.’
Emphasis on Mutual Respect
The judges also stressed the importance of mutual respect between spouses in a marriage. They emphasised that imposing conditions on each other could lead to the breakdown of the marital relationship. The Court explained that if a wife insists on staying with her husband, and the husband refuses without a valid reason, it cannot be considered cruelty on her part. In a marriage, there should be reciprocal respect and companionship, and any forceful imposition of conditions by either party could disrupt the marital bond.
The Court also considered allegations that the husband insisted on his wife returning to the matrimonial house but was unwilling to stay with her there. From this perspective as well, the Court found no evidence of cruelty in the wife's behaviour. The judgment pointed out, ‘If the husband expects the wife to stay apart from him without a valid reason, her resistance cannot be deemed cruelty.’
The couple in question had married in May 2008. The husband desired his wife to live with him in Barduli, his village, but she declined, leading him to seek a divorce on the grounds of desertion and cruelty. The family court granted the divorce, which the wife then challenged in the High Court.
In her appeal, the wife consistently asserted her willingness to live with her husband, arguing that he had always wanted her to stay separately in the village. The High Court, after considering all arguments, concluded that the trial court had not properly considered all the facts. Consequently, the High Court allowed the wife's appeal and set aside the divorce decree.
Advocate Krishna Tandon represented the appellant-wife, while Advocate CJK Rao represented the respondent-husband in the case.