The Supreme Court of India ruled that a wife’s refusal to cook or do household chores isn’t cruelty, calling such expectations outdated. It said “husbands must share domestic duties, stressing marriage is a partnership, not hiring a maid, You are not marrying a maid. You are marrying a life partner,”
The Supreme Court held that a wife’s refusal to cook or perform household chores does not constitute cruelty in marriage.
A bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta said such expectations are outdated and misplaced, emphasizing that household responsibilities are shared rather than being solely the wife’s duty.
The Court observed,
“You’ve not cooked food, you’ve not cleaned the house, you’ve not done mopping. The High Court is right. This cannot be a ground for cruelty. Husband must equally participate in cooking, cleaning, washing, everything. Today’s times are different. You are not marrying a maid. You are marrying a life partner,”
The bench was hearing an appeal against a High Court decision that had overturned a trial court’s decree granting the husband a divorce.
The husband had alleged cruelty, citing improper behaviour and the wife’s failure to carry out household duties.
The Court declined to treat those allegations as cruelty.
The bench also noted that the couple share an eight-year-old child who currently lives with the mother, and that both spouses are educated and employed the husband as a school teacher and the wife as a lecturer. Against that background, the Court questioned the need for continued separation.
The Court asked,
“If both are educated, working, not financially dependent on each other, then why not live together for the welfare of the child?”
The wife, through her lawyer, expressed willingness to return to the matrimonial home, while the husband’s counsel pointed out that this offer came after several years of separation.
Given the conflicting positions, the failed prior mediation and the nature of the dispute, the Court summoned both parties to appear in person to explore reconciliation.
The case is listed for April 27, and both parties were directed to be present before the Court.