The Court ruled that the husband must present specific evidence that his wife’s behavior made it challenging for him to coexist with her.
In a major decision, the Nagpur bench of the Bombay High Court found that Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act does not apply when a woman indicates a wish to leave for employment [Pundlik Yevatkar vs. Ujwala @ Shubhangi Yevatkar].
During a hearing for a divorce petition, a husband claimed that his wife frequently argued with him because she needed to go to work and had threatened to not have children unless she found employment. The case was heard by a bench of Justices Atul Chandurkar and Urmila Joshi-Phalke.
“In this instance, a well-qualified wife expressing her wish to perform the task does not constitute cruelty. In order for him to successfully argue that his wife’s behavior made it impossible for him to live with her, the husband must provide concrete examples.
The spouse had not presented any proof as to when and how the harassment occurred. The claims he made are consistent with normal wear and tear in nature. The married life should be seen as a totality and a few isolated incidents over time should not be considered harsh “the Tuesday order issued by the Court made this observation.
Bombay High Court Decisions:
The bench also took notice of the husband’s additional charge of cruelty, which was that his wife had aborted their child without his permission.
The wife, however, had refused to enroll in studies because of her pregnancy, and the court remarked that she was ready to take care of the kid as a result.
However, the Court made it plain that she has the right to decide whether or not to carry the pregnancy to term.
“It is widely accepted that a woman’s right to make her own reproductive decisions is an integral aspect of her personal freedom as guaranteed by Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. She can’t be compelled to have a kid, it’s true, “The bench made a point.
“There is no proof to suggest that the woman wanted the marriage to dissolve permanently. She was not performing any work when she left the marital home if the husband’s claim that she did so in order to satisfy her desire to work is believed.
In reality, three years after leaving the house, she was hired by Ashram Shala. His claim that she departed the marital home to fulfill her yearning is thus unsupportable. The wife’s claim that she was forced to leave the marital home because of suspicions about her character seems more likely “opinionated the bench.
The bench went on to say that mild inconvenience, irritation, or typical wear and tear disparities are not considered to be cruel treatment. The courts concluded that the husband, in this case, has not shown the wife’s desertion.
“The mere fact that she was staying apart cannot be used to establish desertion. The assertion that the marriage between the parties has failed by one of them will not be sufficient to dissolve the union. The marriage’s irretrievable disintegration is not enough to terminate it on its own.
The Hindu Marriage Act of 1955 prohibits the dissolution of a marriage solemnized under the Act on any grounds other than those listed in Section 13 of the Act “The jury came to a decision.
The bench denied the husband’s motion for a divorce after making these findings.
