Kerala High Court Says Wife's Inability To Cook Cannot Be Considered Cruelty As Grounds Of Divorce

The Kerala High Court, in a recent ruling, stated that a wife's inability to cook due to a lack of culinary skills cannot be considered cruelty as grounds for dissolving a marriage. The court made this determination while rejecting a divorce petition filed by a man who alleged cruelty.

Among a host of accusations made by the husband against his wife was her inability to cook for him due to her lack of cooking skills.

According to Bar and Bench, the court said, "Another ground of cruelty urged by the appellant is that the respondent did not know cooking and so she did not prepare food for him. That also cannot be termed as cruelty sufficient enough to dissolve a legal marriage."

The parties in question were married on May 7, 2012, and lived as husband and wife in Abu Dhabi.

The husband's allegations included claims that his wife insulted and mistreated him in front of his relatives, showed him no respect, maintained distance from him, and even once spat on him (although she later apologized). He also accused her of sending a defamatory complaint to his employer, which he believed was intended to get him fired. Additionally, he stated that she refused to cook for him and frequently quarrelled with his mother over trivial matters.

The wife reportedly countered these allegations, claiming that her husband had sexual perversions and body-shamed her. She also pointed out that her husband had mental health issues and had stopped taking his prescribed medication.

Regarding the husband's allegation that she contacted his employer, the wife explained that her intention was to seek her husband's employer's assistance in reconciling their marriage and continuing their life together.

The High Court reportedly acknowledged the wife's concerns about her husband's behavioural changes and her efforts to understand what was happening, seeking assistance from his employer to help him return to a normal life. The court found no evidence to substantiate the claim that she had spat on her husband.

Regarding the argument that the marriage was "dead practically and emotionally" due to ten years of separation, the Court reportedly stated, "So legally, one party cannot unilaterally decide to walk out of a marriage when sufficient grounds are not there justifying a divorce... saying that due to non-co-habitation for a considerable long period, their marriage is dead practically and emotionally. No one can be permitted to take an incentive out of his own faulty actions or inactions."

As a result, the High Court dismissed the husband's petition seeking the dissolution of the marriage.

The husband was represented by Advocates Santhosh P Poduval, R Rajitha, and Vinaya V Nair, while the wife was represented by Advocate VM Krishnakumar.