The Court added that there should be mutual respect between the husband and wife in a marriage. The marriage would be disrupted if either side forces any condition on the other, the Court said.
In a recent legal precedent established in the case of Kalyani Bai v. Tejnath, the Chhattisgarh High Court emphatically underscored that a wife cannot be relegated to the status of chattel or subjected to conditions dictated unilaterally by her husband within the precincts of their matrimonial domicile.
This pronouncement transpired as the Court dismissed allegations of desertion and cruelty levied by a husband against his spouse. Notably, the Honorable Justices Goutam Bhaduri and Deepak Kumar Tiwari discerned that it was the husband who steadfastly advocated for the wife’s residence within his own village, thereby disregarding her legitimate entreaties to establish a shared abode elsewhere.
“It is very natural and rightful demand of the wife from her husband to keep her along with him. The Respondent/husband herein, from the very beginning, not accepted such genuine request of the Appellant/wife and always used to treat her as a chattel and thought that she is bound to live in such a place where he wants to keep her … It is well settled that in the matrimonial house, the wife should not be treated as hired chattel or a bonded labour to stay under the conditions imposed by the husband,” the Court said.
The judges emphasized the necessity of mutual respect within a marital union, stating that the imposition of conditions by either spouse could potentially disrupt the harmony of the marriage.
“It is obvious that if the wife insists to stay with the husband and, without any extraneous reason or official cause, if husband refuses to keep her, it cannot be said to be a cruelty by the wife towards the husband for such insistence. During the matrimonial ties the reciprocal respect and regard to each other and the company is necessary. In absence thereof any forceful imposition of condition by either side may lead to a matrimonial disruption (sic),” the judgment stated.
The Court also acknowledged claims that the husband demanded his wife’s return to their marital home but refused to stay with her there. From this perspective, the Court determined that the wife’s alleged behavior did not constitute cruelty.
“If the husband expects the wife to stay at a place other than his company without any sufficient cause, it cannot be stated that because of resistance by the wife to stay apart it would be a cruelty by wife (sic),” the Court remarked.
In a matter of background, the matrimonial union in question was solemnized in May 2008.
The husband articulated his desire for conjugal cohabitation with his spouse in Barduli, his domicile. Regrettably, his wife declined to accede to this request, leading to his pursuit of a divorce on grounds of desertion and cruelty.
The family court granted the divorce decree, prompting the wife to file an appeal before the High Court. Her contention centered on her consistent willingness to reside with her husband. However, she asserted that he steadfastly advocated for her separate residence in the village.
After careful scrutiny of the competing contentions, the Court found that the trial court had not duly considered all pertinent facts. Consequently, the High Court upheld the wife’s appeal and rescinded the divorce decree.
Advocate Krishna Tandon acted as counsel for the appellant-wife, while Advocate CJK Rao represented the respondent-husband.
