In calling a wife’s will to live separately from her in-laws as cruelty towards the husband, the Supreme Court has reinforced archaic patriarchal values, writes ADVOCATE SHASHWATI DIKSHA.
————
While it is believed that judicial decision-making aspires to bring about change in society and refurbish primitive social norms. But at the same time, court judgments time and again have mirrored morals and beliefs emanating from the society itself.
One such judgment that marks a slump in the history of Indian law is The Supreme Court’s judgment in Narendra v. K. Meena.
Some may call it a milestone but it is nothing short of a pitfall.
In Narendra v. K. Meena, the apex court declared that a wife forcing her husband to leave his family is inflicting ‘cruelty’ on him and the same was considered as a valid ground to seek divorce under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
Though the judgment has been touted as ‘path-breaking’ there are fundamental flaws that will be addressed throughout this piece. In the said case the factual matrix was not one where the wife forced her husband to leave his family. Yet, what received the most attention was the judgment’s recognition of a son’s separation from his family- propelled by his wife- as a ground for cruelty and divorce.
If separation is torturous, then aren’t we as a society inflicting ‘cruelty’ upon generations of women who are separated from their families at the time of their marriages.
Soon, this judgment became an elixir in the hands of those who wanted to suppress and delegitimise their wife’s demand to lead a life separate from either partner’s family.
The celebrated part of the said judgment is only the tip of the iceberg. What lies within is a social system clenched by patriarchy. Before moving ahead, it is important to lay out relevant extracts from the said judgment for reference:
“12. . . 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 meager income [emphasis supplied]. 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 [emphasis supplied], 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. . .
13. . .A son [emphasis supplied] maintaining his parents is normal in Indian culture & ethos. . . .
14. . .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 & normal custom of the society, she must have some 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’.”
What’s wrong with the judgment?
The judgment is premised on a patriarchal mindset, hence setting forth a precedent to dictate many judgments after it. A dissection of each statement produced by the court can be helpful to understand what went wrong.
First, the statement that ‘A son, brought up and given education by his parents, has a moral and legal obligation to take care and maintain the parents…’ is fundamentally flawed. This draws itself from a prejudiced thought process which strengthens the social practice of focusing only on the son’s education.
This statement is also flawed as per the basic principles of child-rearing and parenthood. It is worded more like an investment scheme instead of a healthy child-parent relationship. Imparting education and providing financial support cannot be used as a bargaining chip by parents to earn interests in old age. Educating a child is not a retirement plan, it is a parental responsibility.
Such a statement is only a testament to the patriarchal mindset that runs through society and across generations. The question one must ask is how did such a regressive thought process find a place in the judgment?
Second, the judgment states that ‘no son would like to be separated from his old parents and other family members…’ If separation is torturous, then aren’t we as a society inflicting ‘cruelty’ upon generations of women who are separated from their families at the time of their marriages. The reality of separation is in a woman’s mind since before her adolescence. The judgment is therefore normalizing patriarchy by setting a precedence of accepting the same.
Third. ‘…a son maintaining his parents is absolutely normal in Indian culture & ethos’ the court furthers. In that case, what happens to those parents who raise daughters? By making this claim the judgment is inherently making a distinction between a son and a daughter.
‘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 play here is of the word ‘normal’. Does this mean that men lack logical thinking? Since a particular lifestyle has been declared ‘normal’ by the court, does one who deviates from this ‘normal’ become unacceptable? By declaring what is normal the judgment is depriving men of their agency to think and dissent as dissenting men are not ‘normal’.
Instead of being open-minded and non-archaic, such observations by the Supreme Court only aid in providing a patriarchal justification for such practices and set precedence for forthcoming cases.
The court has pressed upon the need for a ‘justifiable reason’ for separation from spouse’s parents and almost condemned monetary reasons as ‘justifiable reasons’ that deviate from what it calls ‘normal practice & normal custom of the society’. Why does a wife’s monetary consideration not qualify as ‘justifiable’ grounds of separation from her husband’s parents? Why is the wife’s right to equal share over her husband’s finances any lesser than that of the husband’s parents?
The answer lies in the fact that in a patriarchal social structure men enjoy unconditioned control over the finances of a household irrespective of their actual contribution to it. On the other hand, husbands often exert foremost control over women’s earnings and consider it their right, more so than even the wife’s parents.
Why is the separation of a husband from his parents seen in a bad light?
It is important to fathom that living separately from one’s parents does not necessarily imply abandoning one’s parents. Leading a separate and independent life is not the antithesis to supporting parents and family members. Unless of course living together is crucial because parents are inept to lead their life without physical assistance and support.
Hence, a wife’s desire to live separately from her in-laws cannot be outrightly condemned. Living separately is a personal choice that is directly connected to one’s right to privacy and to live independently.
We also cannot ignore situations such as those where families oppress and harass women and in such a case, the demand for separation is not irrational or immoral.
Based on these arguments it can be observed that the relevant extracts of the said judgment, as quoted above, do not hold firm on the grounds of equality.
The feminist revolution in India expects more from the Apex Court of the country to bring in waves of change.
Instead of being open-minded and non-archaic, such observations by the Supreme Court only aid in providing a patriarchal justification for such practices and set precedence for forthcoming cases. Furthermore, such observations ignite the overwhelming want and desire to have a son and promote derision towards daughters.
Besides, even the judiciary and its decision-making sometimes mirror the morals of society and such decisions will keep rendering ‘justice’ through the prism of patriarchy.
Patriarchy is a social phenomenon that requires attention, as it is being strengthened. With each passing judgment that voices opinions influenced by Narendra v. K. Meena, reestablishes that such separation that happens due to a wife’s influence over her husband is ‘cruelty’ on the husband.
What fails the feminist activism of the country is that such un-progressive and retrograde opinions are disseminated by the highest court of this country.
The feminist revolution in India expects more from the Apex Court of the country to bring in waves of change.
(Shashwati Diksha is a lawyer based in Pune who identifies herself as a feminist. Views are personal.)
