The Bombay High Court, in its judgment dated 08.05.2026 delivered by Justice Bharati Dangre and Justice Manjusha Deshpande in Family Court Appeal Nos.159 and 161 of 2010, allowed the appeals filed by the wife and set aside the common judgment and decree dated 23.07.2010 passed by the Family Court, Mumbai at Bandra in Petition No.A-1022 of 2004 and Petition No.C-188 of 2004. The High Court dismissed the husband’s petition for divorce under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and allowed the wife’s petition for maintenance under the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956.
The marriage between the parties was solemnized on 28.02.2002 as per Hindu Vedic rites. The husband alleged cruelty on the ground that the wife did not behave properly, did not perform household work, was disobedient towards his parents, behaved rudely, could not cook properly and caused him mental stress. The wife denied the allegations and contended that she was subjected to ill-treatment and harassment by the husband and his family members including demands of dowry. The Family Court granted divorce on the ground of cruelty and dismissed the wife’s maintenance petition.
The High Court observed that the cohabitation between the parties lasted only for a short period of less than three months. The allegations made by the husband were of a trivial nature usually seen in the initial days of adjustments in marriage. The Court held that ordinary wear and tear of marriage cannot be elevated to the level of cruelty. For grant of divorce on the ground of cruelty, the actions complained of must be severe and cause extreme mental or physical violence. Mere failure to perform domestic work such as cooking and cleaning does not automatically amount to cruelty as marriage is a partnership of equals and not a service contract, and wives are not “deemed maids”. Refusal of the wife to perform daily chores does not qualify as mental cruelty.
The Court further noted that the allegations were general and not of such intensity that cohabitation became impossible. The evidence led by the husband, including testimony of interested witnesses like his mother and maternal aunt, was not sufficient to prove cruelty. The High Court held that the Family Court had committed a grave error in granting divorce on scanty material.
On the question of maintenance, the High Court found that there was no reliable material to establish that the wife had an independent sufficient source of income. The solitary advertisement regarding her art classes was held insufficient to conclude she had a stable income. Considering the husband’s qualification as a Chartered Accountant and his earning capacity, the Court directed him to pay Rs.10,000/- per month towards maintenance and Rs.10,000/- per month towards residential accommodation to the wife, payable from the date of the application.
Case Title: K P C v. B S C
Case Nos.: Family Court Appeal No.159 of 2010 with Family Court Appeal No.161 of 2010
Court: Bombay High Court
Date of Judgment: 08.05.2026
Coram: Hon’ble Ms. Justice Bharati Dangre & Hon’ble Ms. Justice Manjusha Deshpande
Click HERE for full Judgment
Lawcutor 