A 41-year-old man from Ahmedabad has approached the Gujarat High Court seeking a divorce from his wife, alleging cruelty arising from her alleged habit of bringing stray dogs into their home and allowing them to share the couple’s bedroom. The matter, which has raised legal and social questions on marital obligations and household harmony, is scheduled to be heard on December 1.
Allegations of cruelty and distress
According to the petition, the couple, married in 2006 under Christian personal law, had been facing longstanding domestic disagreements. The husband claims that his wife’s consistent practice of taking in stray dogs caused him “immense physical and mental distress.”
He alleged that she routinely brought stray animals home without discussion, even permitting them to sleep on the couple’s bed. One of the dogs reportedly barked at him whenever he approached his wife and had bitten him during an earlier incident. These interactions, according to the petitioner, created an environment of fear and discomfort within the household.
The petition also mentions that the dogs allegedly bit neighbours, leading to friction in the residential locality. The husband stated that such incidents invited frequent complaints, resulting in repeated police summons. He argued that the situation created significant humiliation for him and contributed to emotional strain.
Claims of domestic responsibilities involving animals
In his plea, the husband further claims that he was compelled to cook and clean for the dogs despite objecting to their presence in the home. He alleged that during arguments between the couple, the dogs would act protective of his wife, becoming aggressive towards him.
One particular incident described in the petition recounts a dog allegedly biting him when he attempted to sleep next to his wife. According to him, his wife insisted that the dog occupy space on their bed, leading to repeated conflict and contributing to the breakdown of marital relations.
April Fool’s prank cited as additional humiliation
The petitioner has also raised a separate grievance involving an April Fool’s Day prank arranged by his wife through a local radio station. During the prank, he was falsely accused of infidelity on air, which he claims went viral and caused significant embarrassment among his friends and colleagues. He argues that the episode added to his mental distress and further damaged the marriage.
Wife denies allegations before family court
The wife, in her response before the family court, has strongly refuted the allegations. She stated that she never brought stray dogs into the home and instead claimed that the animals were brought in by the husband himself, citing his association with a trust dedicated to caring for stray animals.
Her legal counsel argued that the husband’s narrative was fabricated and that he was responsible for introducing the dogs into their household. She maintained that she had no objection to his animal welfare work but denied any behaviour that could constitute cruelty under marital law.
High Court encourages settlement discussions
During a hearing on November 11, a Division Bench comprising Justices Sangeeta K. Vishen and Nisha M. Thakore advised both parties to explore an amicable, out-of-court settlement to avoid prolonged litigation. The bench noted that the dispute appeared primarily domestic and encouraged both sides to consider a mutually agreeable financial arrangement.
The husband has offered ₹15 lakh as alimony, asserting that the marriage has irretrievably broken down. The wife, however, has sought ₹2 crore, with her counsel stating that the husband’s family owns a resort abroad and is capable of providing a settlement reflecting their financial status.
Matter listed for further hearing
With both parties asserting contrasting claims and financial expectations, the High Court will take up the matter on December 1. The case highlights how conflicts over pets and domestic responsibility can escalate into significant marital disputes, especially when compounded by issues of dignity, emotional compatibility, and interpersonal boundaries.
As the hearing approaches, it remains to be seen whether the couple will reach a settlement or whether the court will be required to adjudicate on the allegations and the financial terms of dissolution.