Wife Not Expected To Follow Husband Everywhere Like Vodafone Pug, Says Madras High Court

The Madras High Court has said that a wife cannot be expected to follow her husband wherever he goes like the pug in the well-known Vodafone advertisement, while stressing that practical realities must be considered when deciding matrimonial disputes.

A Division Bench of Justices GR Swaminathan and MD Sumathi made the observation while setting aside a Sivagangai family court order that had dismissed a husband's divorce petition. The family court had held that the husband breached his marital obligations when he moved from Sivagangai to Mumbai for employment without taking his wife along, Bar & Bench reports.

Marriage Cannot Ignore Practical Realities

Rejecting the family court's reasoning, the High Court said it may not always be feasible for a husband to take his wife along when he moves elsewhere for work.

"It may not always be feasible to take the wife along. Suppose the husband is a soldier, it is not possible to set up a marital home in the army barracks. The wife could be gainfully employed. She cannot be expected to conduct herself like the pug in the unforgettable Vodafone ad," the Court said.

The observation underlines a practical aspect of modern marriages: spouses may sometimes have to live apart because of employment and other circumstances. Living separately for work, by itself, cannot automatically be treated as a failure to discharge marital obligations.

Family Court's Reasoning Rejected

The husband had alleged that his wife was in an adulterous relationship. The family court, however, held that he was taking advantage of his own wrong under Section 23(1)(a) of the Hindu Marriage Act as he had moved to Mumbai for employment without taking his wife along.

The family court 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. On this basis, it dismissed his divorce petition.

The High Court strongly disapproved of the reasoning.

"Radical feminists may applaud the revolutionary approach of the trial court. We say with regret that we cannot give our imprimatur," the Bench said.

The High Court's observations signal that matrimonial obligations cannot be viewed in isolation from the circumstances in which spouses live and work. The Bench pointed out that it may not always be feasible for spouses to live together, particularly when employment makes this difficult.

Adultery Charge Also Fails

While disagreeing with the family court's reasoning, the High Court did not accept the husband's allegation of adultery either.

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 said that when adultery is pleaded, the alleged paramour must be impleaded and failure to do so is fatal to the plea.

The High Court also 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.

16 Years Apart, Marriage Beyond Repair

The couple married in September 1992 and had four children. By the time the appeal was heard, the husband was 67 years old and the couple had been living separately for 16 years.

The Court noted that the wife had not taken any step towards rejoining her husband, including sending a formal letter or notice.

"We are more than satisfied that the relationship between the parties has broken down beyond repair," the Bench said.

Relying on the Supreme Court's decision in Rakesh Raman v. Kavitha, the Bench said 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 finding puts the length and reality of the couple's separation at the centre of the dispute rather than treating the husband's decision to move for employment as the determining factor.

Also Watch:

Settlement Attempt Fails

The judges also interacted with the husband and wife in an attempt to arrive at an amicable settlement, but the effort failed.

Finding that there was "so much of bad blood" between them and no possibility of reunion, the High Court dissolved the marriage.

The Court directed the husband to pay ₹7 lakh as alimony to his wife. The divorce decree will come into force only after the amount is deposited before the family court.

Advocate S Srinivasa Raghavan appeared for the husband, while Advocate C Suresh Kannan represented the wife.