Recently a Division Bench of Bombay High Court (Nagpur Bench) comprising of Justices AS Chandurkar and Urmila Joshi Phalke held that the desire of a married woman to go out for job necessarily does not constitute cruelty for the purposes of divorce. The Bench held that "If the contention of the appellant/husband is accepted that she left the matrimonial house to fulfill her desire to do the job, admittedly, she was not doing any job when she left the matrimonial house. After three years of leaving the matrimonial house she got the job in one Ashram Shala. Therefore, the contention of the appellant/husband that she left the matrimonial house to fulfill her desire is not sustainable."

As noted by the bench the facts of the case are that the appellant and the respondent got married on 08.08.2021. After the marriage the respondent/wife resumed cohabitation at the house of the appellant/husband at Buldana. The appellant/husband was serving as an Assistant Teacher at M.E.S. High School, Mehkar at the relevant time and was shuttling between Mehkar and Buldana. The respondent/wife is also qualified and completed her post-graduation and was desiring to do a teacher’s job. As per the contention of the appellant/husband that as per desire of the respondent/wife he was searching a suitable job of Teacher for her. However, she was harassing him for searching Teacher’s job and was also threatening that she would not beget a child, till she secures a job. In the meantime, the respondent/wife delivered a male child on 14/06/2002 at her maternal place. After spending of three months at maternal house after delivery she resumed cohabitation at the house of the appellant/husband. As per the contention of the appellant/husband, after birth of the child again she started harassing him on the count that she wants to start her tuition classes at Mehkar.

The Court observed that "husband has filed petition for seeking dissolution of marriage on two grounds i.e. cruelty and desertion under Section 13(1)(ia) and 13(1)(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The petition for dissolution of marriage is preferred mainly on the allegation that the respondent/wife had treated him with cruelty after marriage. As per the allegation of the appellant/husband, the respondent/wife who had completed her postgraduation in English expressed her desire to do the job. He accordingly searched for the job for her at Mehkar but he could not succeed. On her insistence he shifted to Mehkar where the respondent/wife was harassing him on account of job for her. In the meantime, she delivered a male child. After the birth of child the respondent/wife expressed her desire to start the tuition classes and to fulfill her desire he shifted to Mehkar but the respondent/wife had not started tuition classes by assigning reason that her son is infant and she has to look after him."

The Court noted that "Only allegation of the appellant/husband was that the respondent/wife was harassing him by expressing that she wants to do the job."

Further Court noted that "Now, on the basis of above said evidence it is to be ascertained whether the contention of the appellant/husband that the respondent/wife was insisting him to search job for her and harassing for the same, terminated pregnancy without his consent amounts to cruelty."

The court came to the conclusion that "After adverting to material on record it was not proved that the respondent/wife was insisting to the appellant/husband to search the job for her. It is evident from the evidence of the appellant/husband that he had no objection if the respondent/wife engaged in doing job. His evidence that the respondent/wife was harassing him is vague one. He nowhere narrated the manner in which he was harassed. On the contrary, evidence shows that the respondent/wife had not accepted to conduct private tuition classes considering her child is of a tender age."

"Here in the present case, expressing desire by wife who is well qualified that she wants to do the job does not amount to cruelty" The Court added.

Case Details:-

FAMILY COURT APPEAL NO.75 & 76 OF 2018
Pundlik Martandrao Yevatkar,   ...PETITIONER
VERSUS
Sau. Ujwala @ Shubhangi Pundlik Yevatkar   ...Respondent

Read the Complete Judgment on the link below:-

file:///C:/Users/MAA/Downloads/201900000752018_24.pdf