Case Name: KBC V. BSC
Petition Number: FAMILY COURT APPEAL NO. 159 OF 2010
Neutral Citation: 2026:BHC:AS:22363:DB
Date of Judgment: 08.05.2026
Coram: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE BHARTI DANGRE & HON’BLE JUSTICE MS. MANJUSHA DESHPANDE
Relevant Provisions: Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and Section 18 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 195
INTRODUCTION
The present dispute centres around whether the wife’s alleged conduct amounts to cruelty under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, and whether she is entitled to maintenance despite alleged sporadic income. The Court held that ordinary matrimonial disagreements and adjustment issues during early short cohabitation do not constitute cruelty and cannot justify divorce, and that a wife cannot be denied maintenance on mere presumptions of financial independence absent proof of stable income.
FACTS
The present appeals arose out of the common judgment passed by the Family Court, Mumbai at Bandra. The Family Court dissolved the marriage between the parties under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 on the ground of cruelty and dismissed the wife’s petition seeking maintenance and residential accommodation under the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 by the impugned judgment.
The parties were married according to Hindu rites and ceremonies. Soon after the marriage, disputes arose between them. Though the parties attempted reconciliation through mediation in June 2002, the settlement failed and the wife left the matrimonial home to reside with her parents. The husband alleged that the wife behaved rudely, disobeyed his parents, neglected household responsibilities, and caused him mental cruelty. During the pendency of proceedings, interim maintenance of Rs.1200 per month and costs of Rs.1000 were awarded to the wife. Both the decree of divorce and the order of maintenance were challenged via this appeal.
ARGUMENTS OF THE PARTIES
The appellant-wife contended that the Family Court wrongly appreciated the evidence and erroneously denied maintenance despite the respondent being a qualified Chartered Accountant earning substantially during the pendency of proceedings and presently having an established practice. She argued that there was no material proving that she had a stable or sufficient independent income, and mere conduct of art classes or a newspaper advertisement could not establish financial self-sufficiency. According to her, she was subjected to harassment, dowry demands, physical and mental cruelty by the respondent and his family, compelling her to leave the matrimonial home. She denied allegations regarding neglect of domestic work and asserted that the respondent relied only on interested witnesses.
Per contra, the respondent-husband submitted that the appellant treated him and his parents cruelly by behaving rudely, disrespecting elders, refusing household responsibilities, demanding separate residence, and threatening suicide. He contended that she voluntarily left the matrimonial home on 7 July 2002 without just cause and thereafter harassed him through complaints before police and authorities. According to him, the appellant was financially capable of maintaining herself as she conducted art and decoration classes and earned independently. He argued that the allegations of cruelty were proved through consistent testimony of himself, his mother, and maternal aunt, whose evidence remained unshaken in cross-examination. He further relied upon the appellant’s admissions regarding frequent quarrels soon after marriage.
ISSUES
1. Whether the alleged conduct of the wife, namely inability to cook properly, refusal to perform household chores, occasional quarrels, alleged disrespect towards elders, and frequent visits to her parental home constitutes ‘cruelty’ of such gravity and persistence as to make continued cohabitation unbearable, thereby justifying dissolution of marriage under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955?
- Whether the Family Court was justified in treating the wife as financially independent on the basis of sporadic income, and whether the husband’s professional qualification as a Chartered Accountant and earning capacity should be considered while assessing maintenance?
JUDGMENT AND ANALYSIS
The Court, upon re-appreciation of the evidence, held that the parties had cohabited only for a brief period of less than three months and that the allegations levelled by the husband did not constitute ‘cruelty; within the meaning of Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The allegations against the wife primarily related to inability to cook properly, refusal to perform household chores, frequent quarrels, disrespect towards elders, and visits to her parental home. The Court observed that such issues are ordinary incidents of marital adjustment during the initial phase of marriage and cannot, by themselves, amount to cruelty warranting dissolution of marriage.
The court remarked at Para 23 that mere failure to perform domestic work such as cooking, 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”. Therefore, refusal of the wife to perform daily chores even in our view does not qualify as a mental cruelty.
In the light of this remark, the court further emphasized that cruelty must be of such gravity and persistence that continued cohabitation becomes unbearable. The evidence of the husband’s mother and maternal aunt was treated as interesting testimony and found unreliable. Consequently, the decree of divorce granted by the Family Court was set aside.
With regards to the second issue on maintenance, the Court held that the Family Court erred in concluding that the wife was financially independent merely because she conducted occasional art and craft classes. There was no cogent material establishing that she had a stable source of livelihood. On the other hand, the husband was a qualified Chartered Accountant with professional earning capacity. The court relied upon the principles laid down by the Apex Court in Rajnesh v. Neha and Another [(2021) 2 SCC 324], the Court held that income tax returns alone are not conclusive of actual earning capacity. Considering inflation, cost of living, and the wife’s lack of independent residence, the Court awarded Rs.10,000 per month towards maintenance and Rs.10,000 per month towards residential accommodation.
CONCLUSION
The Court ultimately set aside the decree of divorce granted by the Family Court and enhanced the maintenance awarded to the appellant-wife by granting Rs.10,000 per month towards maintenance and an additional Rs.10,000 per month towards residential accommodation. It held that ordinary matrimonial disagreements, incompatibility, and adjustment issues arising during the initial phase of marriage and short cohabitation cannot be construed as ‘cruelty’ under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The Court further reaffirmed that a legally wedded wife cannot be denied maintenance on mere presumptions regarding her financial independence, particularly when there is no cogent evidence of stable income and the husband possesses adequate professional qualifications and earning capacity to maintain her with dignity.
