Ranchi: Women in India are obligated to serve their elderly mothers-in-law or grandmothers-in-law, the Jharkhand High Court observed recently.
Justice Subhash Chand quoted lines from the ‘Manusmriti’ and said serving the elderly in-laws was a ‘cultural practice’.
Hearing a plea challenging a Family Court order — which asked a man to pay maintenance of Rs 30,000 per month to his wife and Rs 15,000 per month to his minor son — the high court stated that the wife’s insistence to live separately from her in-laws is unreasonable.
“It is the culture in India to serve the aged mother-in-law or grandmother-in-law, as the case may be, by the wife, in order to preserve this culture,” Justice Chand said.
“Where the women of the family are miserable, the family is soon destroyed, but it always thrives where the women are contented,” he said, reciting lines from Manusmriti.
“In no world has Brahma created a gem superior to a woman (stree) whose speech, sight, touch, thought, provoke pleasurable sensations. Such a gem in the shape of a woman is the fruit of a person’s good deeds, and from such a gem a person obtains both sons and pleasure. A woman, therefore, resembles the goddess of wealth in a family, and must be treated with respect, and all her wants must be satisfied,” said Justice Chand reciting lines from ‘Brihat Samhita’.
“In the Constitution of India under Article 51-A of Part IV-A, wherein the fundamental duties of the citizen of India are enumerated in Clause (f), it is provided ‘to value and preserve the rich heritage of our composite culture. It is the culture in India to serve the old-aged mother-in-law or grandmother-in-law, as the case may be, by the wife in order to preserve this culture. It was obligatory on the part of the wife to serve her husband’s mother and maternal grandmother and not to insist on unreasonable demand to live separately from his old-aged mother-in-law and the maternal grandmother-in-law,” the high court said.
The case was based on Piyali Ray Chatterjee’s maintenance application under Section 125 of Code of Criminal Procedure, alleging ill-treatment and demand for dowry by her husband, Rudra Narayan Ray.
She claimed she faced mistreatment at her in-laws’ house and also mental pressure after being pressured for a dowry of Rs 5 lakh, hence she returned to her maternal house in Maluti, a village in Jharkhand.
Her husband claimed that the petitioner had pressured him to throw his mother and grandmother out of the house.
The Family Court in Dumka had granted maintenance to Piyali, ordering Rudra Narayan to pay the said amount to his wife and son, with arrears in 12 equal instalments.
The high court bench looked into testimony of different persons and stated that it is proved the wife had left her matrimonial house on her own will because she didn’t want to serve her aged mother-in-law (75) and grandmother-in-law (95) and that she created pressure upon her husband to live separate from them, which was not agreed upon by him.
The bench stated this ground was not found sufficient.
