The Bombay High Court has overturned a Family Court decree that had granted divorce to a husband on grounds of cruelty after complaints that his wife could not cook properly, refused household work, and argued with family members. The Court held that such allegations reflected ordinary marital adjustments and could not legally amount to cruelty under the Hindu Marriage Act.
A Division Bench of Justice Bharati Dangre and Justice Manjusha Deshpande also restored the wife’s maintenance claim and directed the husband to pay ₹20,000 per month towards maintenance and residential accommodation.
Background of the Case
The marriage between the parties was solemnised in February 2002. According to the husband, disputes began within days of marriage and the wife allegedly behaved rudely, disrespected his parents, and failed to perform household duties. He later filed a divorce petition under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act alleging mental cruelty.
The wife opposed the allegations and claimed that she was subjected to harassment and ill-treatment at the matrimonial home. She stated that she was compelled to leave the house in July 2002 and had no independent source of income. She also sought maintenance and residential accommodation under the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act.
The Family Court in Mumbai had earlier granted divorce to the husband and rejected the wife’s maintenance plea, leading to the present appeals before the High Court.
Court’s Observations on ‘Cruelty’
After examining the evidence, the High Court found that the parties had cohabited for less than three months and most allegations were related to ordinary domestic disagreements during the early days of marriage.
The Bench observed that complaints regarding cooking, household chores, or occasional quarrels could not automatically be treated as cruelty serious enough to dissolve a marriage.
“The ordinary wear and tear of marriage has been given undue weightage to treat it as cruelty,” the Court observed.
The Court further noted that cruelty under matrimonial law must involve conduct so serious that continued cohabitation becomes impossible.
In a significant observation, the Bench said,
“Marriage is a partnership of equals and not a service contract and the wife’s are not ‘deemed maids’.”
The judges also found that the husband mainly relied on testimony from his mother and maternal aunt, both of whom were interested witnesses. The Court held that such evidence alone was insufficient to establish cruelty.
Maintenance and Right to Residence
While dealing with the maintenance issue, the High Court disagreed with the Family Court’s finding that the wife was capable of maintaining herself merely because she conducted occasional art and craft classes.
The Bench held that possessing a skill or pursuing hobby-based activities could not be treated as proof of stable income.
The Court also noted that the husband was a qualified Chartered Accountant and had sufficient earning capacity. Relying on the Supreme Court judgment in Rajnesh v. Neha, the Bench said income disclosures in maintenance cases must be carefully scrutinised.
Court’s Decision
Allowing both appeals, the Bombay High Court quashed the Family Court judgment dated July 23, 2010. The husband’s divorce petition was dismissed, while the wife’s maintenance petition was allowed.
The Court directed the husband to pay ₹10,000 per month as maintenance and an additional ₹10,000 per month towards residential accommodation from the date of the application.
Case Details
Case Title: K B C v. B S C
Case Number: Family Court Appeal No.159 of 2010 with Family Court Appeal No.161 of 2010
Judges: Justice Bharati Dangre and Justice Manjusha Deshpande
Decision Date: May 8, 2026
