In a significant judgment, the Bombay high court has said that if earning women do not spend their salaries on the upkeep of their houses, and their husbands are in financial difficulty, this cannot be construed as cruelty.

The division bench of justice PB Majmudar and justice Anoop Mohta, in their seven-page judgment, noted, “Simply because a wife is earning and does not part with her salary in favour of the husband, it can never be treated cruelty on part of the wife.”

The observations were made while dismissing an appeal made by 37-year-old Manoj Thorat (name changed), a resident of Kalwa, who challenged a Thane family court order that rejected his plea for divorce on grounds of cruelty meted out to him by his wife.

Thorat claimed that his wife quarrelled with him frequently in the presence of other family members, and refused to part with her salary even as he was struggling monetarily. He stated that this amounted to cruelty, and pressed for divorce on grounds of desertion. The court said, “It is very distressing that on such trifling grounds, the husband has deserted his wife, although there is a child out of the said wedlock. It has come to light that immediately after the delivery of the child, the appellant demanded money from his wife when she was feeding the child, and on subsequent days as well. If any cruelty is to be attributed, in our view, it is to the appellant husband and not to the wife.”

The court continued, “After marriage, the wife does not execute a slavery bond where she will not be allowed to speak. The wife is entitled to have a voice in the family, and she is expected to express her views.” The court also upheld the order for the restitution of conjugal rights sought by the wife.

Permitting the wife to pursue her case with the Indian High Commission for the maintenance of herself and the child since the husband had moved to Norway and was now earning 37,000 Norwegian krones (NOK) a year (about Rs 329,370), the court said, “It will be open to the wife to try to get the social security number of the husband, on the basis of which she can point out to the Indian High Commission as well as the Norway government that the husband is not paying for the maintenance of the child and wife.”