By Admin 
Telangana High Court has given a historic and very important decision regarding marital relationships and the changing social environment. The court made it clear that if the wife is working then her not being able to cook food or not being able to help her mother-in-law in household chores does not fall in the category of cruelty. The court has rejected the husband’s divorce petition, terming it as a normal struggle in marital life.
A law graduate by profession, resident of Hyderabad, had filed a divorce petition against his wife. His wife is an IT professional. The husband alleged that since marriage, his wife was not behaving properly with him and his family. The husband had argued in the court that his wife neither cooked food for him nor helped his mother (mother-in-law) in household chores. Apart from this, he also alleged that the wife often went to her maternal home and he put mental pressure on her by demanding to settle down in a separate house.
what did the court say
The division bench of Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya and Justice Nagesh Bhimpaka, while hearing this case, deeply understood the challenges of the changing times and the lifestyle of working couples. The court found that both the husband and wife are working in the private sector and their shift timings are completely different from each other.
According to records, the husband used to go to office at 1 pm and return home at 11 pm. Whereas the wife used to wake up at 6 in the morning, finish household chores, leave for office at 9 o’clock and return at 6 in the evening. When the working hours of both are so challenging, then it is wrong to call it cruelty just because of not being able to cook food. This is the normal wear and tear of marital life, which cannot be considered cruelty.
The court said that if the mother-in-law complains about not getting help from the daughter-in-law in household work, then it cannot legally be put under the ambit of ‘mental cruelty’. The court, showing sensitivity, noted that the wife’s stay in her maternal home was justified, as she was recovering physically and mentally after the miscarriage. The court clarified that the suggestion of living separately had come from the wife’s lawyer during cross-examination, and not the wife herself had insisted on it.
The court has given a clear message that a sacred bond like marriage cannot be ended on the basis of minor complaints or household chores, especially when the lifestyle is changing rapidly.
read this also
History Of Turkman Gate: What is the history of Turkman Gate? Who built it, bulldozer ran for the first time in 1976, know the whole story