The Jharkhand High Court recently emphasized that, in accordance with Indian cultural norms, a married woman is obligated to fulfill the role of serving her elderly mother-in-law. The court highlighted the significance of adhering to this tradition as a means of preserving the cultural values associated with marital relationships in the country.

Justice Subhash Chand, presiding as the sole judge, emphasized the mandatory nature of a wife's responsibility to attend to the needs of her husband's mother and maternal grandmother. He stressed that insisting on separate living arrangements from them should be avoided.

The Court supported its stance by invoking Article 51A of the Constitution to strengthen its argument.

"In the Constitution of India, the court made these observations during the hearing of an appeal filed by a man challenging a family court's order in Dumka. The family court had directed him to provide ₹30,000 as maintenance to his estranged wife and ₹15,000 to their minor son.
Under Article 51-A, the fundamental duties of a citizen are enumerated in clause (f), it is provided 'to value and preserve the rich heritage of our composite culture.' 

As a result, the Court concluded that a woman ought not to exert pressure on her husband to distance himself from his mother. The judgment drew upon Hindu religious texts, including Manusmriti, to underscore the significance of women within the family structure.

Moreover, the court referenced verses from Manusmriti, asserting, "Where women of the family are miserable, the family is soon destroyed, but it always thrives where the women are content.

The court made these observations during the hearing of an appeal filed by a man challenging a family court's order in Dumka. The family court had directed him to provide ₹30,000 as maintenance to his estranged wife and ₹15,000 to their minor son.

The woman claimed that she was subjected to cruelty and dowry-related torture by her husband and in-laws. Conversely, the husband asserted that his wife pressured him to live separately from his mother and grandmother. He highlighted instances where the wife engaged in frequent arguments with the elderly women in the household and would leave for her parental home without informing him.

The Court observed that the available evidence on record suggested that the wife was exerting pressure on her husband to live separately from his mother and grandmother, lacking any valid grounds for such insistence.

The single judge, Advocates Indrajit Sinha and Akhouri Awinash Kumar, appeared for the husband.

Advocate Rahul Kumar represented the wife and, in response, nullified the family court's order that granted ₹30,000 in maintenance to the wife. The judge expressed the opinion that since the wife had not provided any valid reason for living separately from her husband, she is not entitled to maintenance. However, the court increased the maintenance for the son from ₹15,000 to ₹25,000.