The Madras High Court has observed that a wife cannot be expected to follow her husband wherever he goes like the pug in the unforgettable Vodafone advertisement, while setting aside a family court order that had dismissed a husband's divorce petition on the ground that he had moved for employment without taking his wife along.
A Division Bench comprising Justices GR Swaminathan and MD Sumathi made the remark while hearing an appeal from a Sivagangai family court decision. The family court had held that the husband was taking advantage of his own wrong under Section 23(1)(a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, by leaving Sivagangai for employment in Mumbai without taking his wife along. It reasoned that it was highly impracticable for anyone to overcome sexual desire and that it was the solemn duty of a husband to take his wife wherever he went, thereby dismissing the husband's petition for divorce.
The High Court disapproved of this reasoning, stating that radical feminists may applaud the trial court's approach, but it could not give its imprimatur to such a view. The Bench emphasized that it may not always be feasible for spouses to live together. Illustrating this, it noted that a soldier, for instance, could not set up a marital home in army barracks, and that the wife could herself be gainfully employed. She cannot be expected to conduct herself like the pug in the unforgettable Vodafone ad.
The Bench further explained that the 'wrong' contemplated under Section 23(1)(a) of the Hindu Marriage Act means serious or grave misconduct, or conduct contrary to right and justice. However, the High Court did not accept the adultery allegation made by the husband. It noted that the alleged paramour had not been made a party to the proceedings. Relying on an earlier Madras High Court ruling, the Bench held that when adultery is pleaded, the alleged paramour must be impleaded, and failure to do so is fatal to the plea.
The Court also noted that the wife had not taken any step towards rejoining her husband, including by sending a formal letter or notice. It expressed satisfaction that the relationship between the parties had broken down beyond repair. Relying on the Supreme Court's decision in Rakesh Raman v. Kavitha, the Bench held that long separation, absence of cohabitation, and complete breakdown of meaningful marital bonds can amount to cruelty under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act.
The judges interacted with the parties in an attempt to arrive at an amicable settlement, but the effort failed. Finding that there was so much of bad blood and no possibility of reunion, the High Court dissolved the marriage. It directed the husband to pay ₹7 lakh as alimony to the wife. The divorce decree would come into force only after the amount is deposited before the family court.
Advocate S Srinivasa Raghavan appeared for the husband, and Advocate C Suresh Kannan represented the wife.