One party cannot unilaterally decide to walk out of a marriage and then seek divorce on the ground that they had been living seperately, the Court said.
The Kerala High Court, in a recent pronouncement, has firmly established that the deficiency of culinary proficiency in a wife does not, in itself, constitute valid grounds for pursuing a divorce on the basis of cruelty.
This legal ruling emanated from a case wherein a petitioner, a husband, sought marital dissolution. One of the allegations proffered by the petitioner was the refusal of his wife to prepare meals for him, which was attributed to her purported incompetence in the culinary arts.
Nonetheless, the Court, presided over by Justices Anil K Narendran and Sophy Thomas, rendered its decision as follows:
“Another ground of cruelty urged by the appellant is that the respondent did not know cooking and so she did not prepare food for him. That also cannot be termed as cruelty sufficient enough to dissolve a legal marriage.”
The parties entered into matrimony on May 7, 2012, and established their matrimonial domicile in Abu Dhabi.
The husband’s assertions encompassed allegations that the wife had subjected him to humiliation and mistreatment in front of his relatives. He claimed that she exhibited a consistent lack of respect and emotional detachment from him. Moreover, he asserted an incident where she reportedly spat on him, albeit later extending an apology. In addition, he contended that she forwarded a complaint to his employer, containing defamatory accusations aimed at his termination. The husband also raised issues regarding the wife’s refusal to prepare meals for him and disputes she engaged in with his mother over seemingly trivial matters.
In response to these allegations, the wife disputed all claims, countering with allegations that her husband exhibited sexual perversions and had body-shamed her. She further expressed concerns about his mental health, noting his discontinuation of prescribed medications.
With regards to the husband’s accusation regarding contact with his employer, the wife explained that her intention was to enlist the employer’s support in reconciling with her husband, as she aspired to salvage their marital relationship.
The High Court took note of the wife’s apprehension regarding behavioral changes in her husband and her effort to engage his employer to understand and address the underlying issues, aimed at restoring his well-being and normalcy. Moreover, the Court found insufficient evidence to substantiate the claim of the wife spitting on her husband.
Considering the protracted separation of ten years and the pronounced practical and emotional breakdown of the marriage, the Court concluded that the marriage had irrevocably deteriorated.
“So legally, one party cannot unilaterally decide to walk out of a marriage, when sufficient grounds are not there justifying a divorce…saying that due to non-co-habitation for a considerable long period, their marriage is dead practically and emotionally. No one can be permitted to take an incentive out of his own faulty actions or inactions.”
Therefore, the High Court dismissed the husband’s petition to dissolve the marriage.
