Whether wife forcing husband to reside separate from his parents amounts to cruelty to him?
The Respondent wife wanted the Appellant to get
separated from his family. The evidence shows that the
family was virtually maintained from the income of the
Appellant husband. It is not a common practice or desirable
culture for a Hindu son in India to get separated from the
parents upon getting married at the instance of the wife,
especially when the son is the only earning member in the
family. A son, brought up and given education by his
parents, has a moral and legal obligation to take care and
maintain the parents, when they become old and when they
have either no income or have a meagre income. In India,
generally people do not subscribe to the western thought,
where, upon getting married or attaining majority, the son
gets separated from the family. In normal circumstances, a
wife is expected to be with the family of the husband after
the marriage. She becomes integral to and forms part of the
family of the husband and normally without any justifiable
strong reason, she would never insist that her husband
should get separated from the family and live only with her.
In the instant case, upon appreciation of the evidence, the
trial Court came to the conclusion that merely for monetary
considerations, the Respondent wife wanted to get her
husband separated from his family. The averment of the
Respondent was to the effect that the income of the
Appellant was also spent for maintaining his family. The
said grievance of the Respondent is absolutely unjustified.
A son maintaining his parents is absolutely normal in
Indian culture and ethos. There is no other reason for
which the Respondent wanted the Appellant to be separated
from the family - the sole reason was to enjoy the income of
the Appellant. Unfortunately, the High Court considered
this to be a justifiable reason. In the opinion of the High
Court, the wife had a legitimate expectation to see that the
income of her husband is used for her and not for the
family members of the Respondent husband. We do not see
any reason to justify the said view of the High Court. As
stated hereinabove, in a Hindu society, it is a pious
obligation of the son to maintain the parents. If a wife
makes an attempt to deviate from the normal practice and
normal custom of the society, she must have some
justifiable reason for that and in this case, we do not find
any justifiable reason, except monetary consideration of the
Respondent wife. In our opinion, normally, no husband
would tolerate this and no son would like to be separated
from his old parents and other family members, who are
also dependent upon his income. The persistent effort of
the Respondent wife to constrain the Appellant to be
separated from the family would be torturous for the
husband and in our opinion, the trial Court was right when
it came to the conclusion that this constitutes an act of
‘cruelty’.
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO.3253 OF 2008
NARENDRA
VERSUS
K. MEENA
ANIL R. DAVE, J.
Dated:OCTOBER 06, 2016.
https://www.lawweb.in/2016/10/whether-wife-forcing-husband-to-reside.html
