Adulterous Wife Can’t Blame Husband Working Away From Home For Her Affairs: Madras High Court Grants Divorce To The Man

Can a husband be blamed for his wife’s alleged adultery merely because his job required him to live elsewhere? The Madras High Court rejected this reasoning and granted divorce after noting that the couple had remained separated for 16 years.

MADURAI: The Madras High Court has set aside a Family Court order which had refused divorce to a husband and had effectively blamed him for his wife’s alleged adultery because he was working away from the matrimonial home.

A Division Bench of Justice G.R. Swaminathan and Justice M.D. Sumathi observed that a husband may not always be able to take his wife to his place of employment. The Court gave the example of a soldier who cannot set up a matrimonial home inside army barracks.

The Court remarked:

“Radical feminists may applaud the revolutionary approach of the trial Court.”

It further said:

“We say with regret that we cannot give our imprimatur.”

The husband had approached the Family Court, Sivagangai, seeking divorce and alleged that his wife was having an adulterous relationship with another man.

However, the alleged paramour was not made a party to the proceedings. The High Court noted that when adultery is pleaded, the alleged paramour must be impleaded and failure to do so can be fatal to that allegation.

Instead of rejecting the allegation on this legal ground, the Family Court held that the husband was taking advantage of his own wrong under Section 23(1)(a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

The Family Court considered the husband’s decision to leave Sivagangai for employment in Mumbai as a breach of marital obligation and reasoned that he should have taken his wife with him.

The Family Court had even observed that:

“Wherever he goes, he shall take his wife with him”

and that a husband who failed to do so should not be allowed to plead adultery.

The Madras High Court strongly disagreed with this approach. It made clear that employment circumstances cannot automatically be treated as matrimonial misconduct by the husband or used to shift responsibility for the other spouse’s alleged conduct.

The Court then examined the overall matrimonial relationship. The parties had married on 10 September 1992 according to Hindu rites and had four children.

By the time the appeal was decided, the husband was 67 years old and the parties had already been living separately for 16 years. The Court also noted that the wife had taken no step to rejoin the husband and had not even sent a formal letter or notice seeking reunion.

Relying on Shri Rakesh Raman v. Kavitha, 2023 SCC On Line SC 497, the High Court observed that prolonged separation, absence of cohabitation and complete breakdown of matrimonial bonds can amount to cruelty under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act.

The Court observed:

“continuation of such a ‘marriage’ would only mean giving sanction to cruelty”.

The Bench also attempted an amicable settlement between the husband and wife, but the effort failed. It found that the bitterness between the parties was so deep that reunion was impossible.

Accordingly, the Madras High Court granted divorce and set aside the Family Court order.

However, under Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act, the Court directed the husband to pay Rs 7 lakh as alimony to the wife. The divorce decree would take effect only after the amount was deposited before the Family Court, Sivagangai.

EXPLANATORY TABLE OF LAWS AND SECTIONS

CASE DETAILS

KEY TAKEAWAYS

• A husband earning away from home cannot be blamed for his wife’s alleged adultery. The Madras High Court rejected that logic outright.
• Working in another city is not a matrimonial “wrong”. A man cannot be punished merely because his job keeps him away from the matrimonial home.
• The Family Court’s reasoning effectively shifted responsibility onto the husband. The High Court rejected that approach.
• Sixteen years of separation mattered. The Court found that the marriage had broken down beyond repair, and continuing it would only prolong the cruelty.
• The husband finally got a divorce, but still had to pay Rs 7 lakh in alimony. Even after years of separation and litigation, the financial burden remained.