Court Rules Trivial Allegations Insufficient for Divorce; Orders Rs. 20,000 Monthly Maintenance for Wife
In a significant ruling, the Bombay High Court has dismissed a husband's petition for divorce on the grounds of cruelty, while upholding the wife's right to maintenance and residential accommodation. The Division Bench, comprising Justices Bharati Dangre and Manjusha Deshpande, delivered the judgment on May 8, 2026, in the case of Kirtida Bhavesh Chhadva v. Bhavesh Shamji Chhadva, setting aside the Family Court's earlier decision.
The case centered around allegations made by Bhavesh Shamji Chhadva, a Chartered Accountant, against his wife, Kirtida Bhavesh Chhadva, claiming cruelty due to her refusal to perform household chores and rude behavior. The couple's cohabitation lasted less than three months before Kirtida left the matrimonial home. Bhavesh sought a divorce under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
The High Court, however, found the allegations to be trivial and insufficient to constitute cruelty. The judges noted that ordinary household disagreements or inability to perform domestic work do not amount to cruelty, which requires severe and persistent behavior making cohabitation impossible. The court emphasized that the nature of the allegations was typical of early marriage adjustments and did not justify a decree of divorce.
Regarding the wife's maintenance claim under the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, the court highlighted the lack of evidence supporting the Family Court's finding that Kirtida was capable of maintaining herself. The court ruled that the husband's professional capacity as a Chartered Accountant rendered him capable of supporting his wife.
In light of these findings, the High Court set aside the Family Court's order denying maintenance. It directed Bhavesh to pay Rs. 10,000 per month for maintenance and an additional Rs. 10,000 per month for Kirtida's residential accommodation. The judgment underscores the legal principle that maintenance should be fair and sufficient to allow the wife to live with dignity, considering the husband's earning potential.
Bottom Line:
The allegations of cruelty made by the respondent-husband against the appellant-wife were found to be trivial and insufficient to constitute "cruelty" under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The wife's right to maintenance and residential accommodation was upheld as there was no evidence of her independent income, and the husband, being a Chartered Accountant, was found capable of maintaining her.
Statutory provision(s): Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 Section 13(1)(i-a), Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 Section 18
Kirtida Bhavesh Chhadva v. Bhavesh Shamji Chhadva, (Bombay)(DB) : Law Finder Doc id # 2901989
