E-Paper
'Wife can't follow husband like Vodafone ad pug': Madras high court in prolonged divorce battle
The Madras high court also reportedly said that a man, likewise, cannot always take along a wife with him when he has to shift for employment.
Prefer HTon Google
Hearing a matrimonial dispute case, the Madras high court recently made the observation that a woman cannot be expected to follow her husband wherever he goes like the pug (dog breed) in the Vodafone ad.
The court also said that a man, likewise, cannot always take along a wife with him when he has to shift for employment, reported Bar and Bench.
A division bench of Justices GR Swaminathan and MD Sumathi made the remark while rejecting a family court observation that husband had violated marital obligations by shifting to another city for work without taking his wife along.
"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," Bar and Bench quoted the high court as observing.
The Bench made the observations while setting aside an order of the Sivagangai family court, which had dismissed the husband's divorce petition.
The husband had reportedly alleged that his wife was in an “adulterous relationship”. However, the family court held that he was taking advantage of his own wrong under Section 23(1)(a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, as he had left Sivagangai for employment in Mumbai 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. It therefore dismissed the husband's divorce petition.
The couple had 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.
‘Radical feminists may applaud’: HC
The high court disapproved of the family court's reasoning, saying, “Radical feminists may applaud the revolutionary approach of the trial court. We say with regret that we cannot give our imprimatur.”
The high court also clarified that the "wrong" contemplated under Section 23(1)(a) refers to serious or grave misconduct, or conduct contrary to right and justice. However, the 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 that failure to do so is fatal to the plea.
The court also noted that the wife had not taken any steps towards rejoining her husband, including by sending a formal letter or notice.
"We are more than satisfied that the relationship between the parties has broken down beyond repair."
Relying on the Supreme Court's decision in Rakesh Raman v. Kavitha, the Bench said that prolonged separation, absence of cohabitation and the complete breakdown of meaningful marital bonds can amount to cruelty under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act.
