New Delhi: The pug may have faithfully followed its owner everywhere in Vodafone’s once-popular advertisements. A wife, however, cannot be expected to do the same with her husband, the Madras High Court has said.
Hearing a matrimonial dispute, a Division Bench of Justices G.R. Swaminathan and M.D. Sumathi observed that a wife cannot be expected to follow her husband wherever his employment takes him.
The court was hearing an appeal against a Sivagangai family court order that had dismissed a husband’s divorce petition, partly because he had moved to Mumbai for work without taking his wife along.
The couple married in September 1992 and had four children. By the time the appeal came up before the High Court, the husband was 67, and the couple had been living separately for 16 years.
The husband had sought divorce alleging that his wife was in an adulterous relationship. The family court, however, held that he was trying to take advantage of his “own wrong” under Section 23(1)(a) of the Hindu Marriage Act by leaving Sivagangai for employment without taking his wife with him.
It reasoned that it was “highly impracticable” for anyone to overcome sexual desire and that the husband had a solemn duty to take his wife wherever he went. However, the High Court disagreed.
“It may not always be feasible to take the wife along,” the bench said. “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.”, adding a reference to the pug in the Vodafone ads who followed a child everywhere, prompting the tagline, “wherever you go our network follows”.
The judges also took exception to the family court’s reasoning, observing: “Radical feminists may applaud the revolutionary approach of the trial court. We say with regret that we cannot give our imprimatur.”
However, the High Court also did not accept the husband’s allegation of adultery.
Also Read: Wife’s maintenance claim can’t be defeated by man’s charge of disputed earlier marriage—HC
Marriage ‘broken down beyond repair’
After 16 years of separation, the court found that the marriage itself had collapsed. The judges noted that the wife had taken no steps to rejoin her husband and that attempts by the bench to bring about a settlement had failed.
“We are more than satisfied that the relationship between the parties has broken down beyond repair,” the court said, noting there was “so much of bad blood” and no possibility of reunion.
Relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in Rakesh Raman v. Kavitha, the bench said prolonged separation, absence of cohabitation, and the breakdown of meaningful marital bonds could amount to cruelty under the Hindu Marriage Act.
The High Court dissolved the marriage and directed the husband to pay Rs 7 lakh as alimony to his wife.
Edited by Maryam Hassan