The court also said if the wife wakes up late in the morning or wants tea to be served in bed would at best show that she is lazy, and “laziness is not cruelty”.
The observations by the court came while dismissing a man’s appeal against a family court’s decision rejecting his plea for divorce on grounds of cruelty.
“The plea that wife denied consortium to husband after August, 2012, even if true has to be understood in light of the fact that by the third week of May, 2012 she was in the family way.
“Carrying a foetus in the womb she would obviously be inconvenienced by sex and assuming she totally shunned sex with the petitioner (husband) as her pregnancy grew would not constitute cruelty,” a bench of justices Pradeep Nandrajog and Pratibha Rani said.
The court further said, “The assertion that wife would get up late and would want tea to be served to her would at best show that she was lazy, and laziness is not cruelty.”
The Family Court was of the view that the allegations made by the man in his plea were “sans any particulars” and “vague”.
The high court agreed with this view of the lower court, saying the man in his plea has not disclosed any particulars regarding the allegations he has made against his wife.