Husbands Leaving Jobs & Becoming Homemakers May Be A Remedy, As Women Becoming Career-Oriented Taking A Toll On Marriages: Madras High Court
Written and analysed by Vaibhav Ojha
Head Of Legal CommunicationsCHENNAI: The Madras High Court has observed that traditional roles of husbands and wives are changing as more women become career-oriented. The Court said this change is affecting some marriages, particularly where both spouses have demanding professional careers.
A Division Bench of Justice G.R. Swaminathan and Justice M.D. Sumathi observed that traditionally, husbands were expected to earn for the family while wives managed the home. However, these roles have changed significantly over the last several decades.
The Court observed:
āTraditionally, the responsibility of raising the financial resource rested on the husband, the wife took care of the domestic front. Both the roles are entitled to equal respect. This position has been changing over the last half a century. Women are also increasingly becoming career oriented. We note that this is taking a toll in many relationships. Particularly, in IT sector and professions. Marriage is not proving to be a win-win proposition for career women. Since such women see marriage as an impediment to their career prospects, they choose to skip it altogether. The number of unmarried women is on the rise,ā
The High Court suggested that the answer need not always be that the woman gives up or slows down her career. A husband can also take responsibility for the home and family. The Court recognised homemaking as a role that is not restricted to women.
It observed:
āThe situation can probably be remedied if husbands would opt to be home makersā¦If there can be house wives, there can be house husbands also. Let this become a new normal. We are of the view that this would help preserve the institution of marriage and family. The expression home maker is general neutral. Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary defines home maker as a person who works at home and takes care of the house and family. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has been underlining the fact that the tasks carried out by a house wife as a home maker has enormous economic value,ā
The observations came in matrimonial appeals filed by a husband and wife after the Family Court rejected their respective cases. The husband had sought divorce on the ground of cruelty, while the wife had sought restitution of conjugal rights.
The couple married in 2011 according to Hindu rites and customs. Both were employed at the time of marriage. Their first son was born in 2012.
The husband already had an MD degree and wanted to pursue further medical studies. During this period, the wife stayed with her parents. While pursuing DM Cardiology, the husband visited his wife and child at his in-laws' home every month.
Their second son was born in 2016. After completing DM Cardiology in 2017, the husband decided to further pursue an FNB qualification in Interventional Cardiology. The wife continued staying at her parental home, and the husband continued his monthly visits.
During the COVID period, the husband also stayed with his wife at her parents' house. According to the Court, he had no difficulty with this arrangement at that stage.
The situation changed after the husband's professional career improved. He wanted the family to move out of his in-laws' house, but the wife did not agree. Differences between them increased, and there was also a physical scuffle.
The wife eventually approached the Family Court seeking restitution of conjugal rights. The husband sought divorce alleging cruelty. The Family Court rejected both petitions, resulting in appeals before the Madras High Court.
While examining the dispute, the High Court also critically examined the husband's conduct. It noted that he had been comfortable staying at his in-laws' home during the period when he was building his qualifications, but found the same arrangement unacceptable after becoming professionally successful.
The Court further observed that while the husband was improving his professional skills, the wife's own abilities had become blunt. In its view, fairness required recognition of the wife's contribution in managing the family and raising their two children.
At the same time, the facts also show the pressures that changing marital expectations can place on a husband. He had continued his professional studies, regularly visited his wife and children and later lived at his in-laws' home, before differences arose over where the family should eventually live. The dispute therefore developed around competing expectations about career, residence, family responsibilities and the roles of both spouses.
After personally interacting with the husband and wife, the High Court concluded that the marriage was dead and had broken down beyond repair.
The Court then considered the financial position of the wife following dissolution of the marriage and asked the husband to make a fair financial offer. The husband offered Rs 2.5 crore, which the wife accepted.
Accordingly, the High Court directed the husband to deposit Rs 1.5 crore in the wife's name and Rs 50 lakh each in the names of the two minor children. The marriage was thereafter dissolved.
EXPLANATORY TABLE - LAWS & SECTIONS INVOLVED
| LAW / SECTION | WHAT IT COVERS | RELEVANCE IN THIS CASE |
|---|---|---|
| Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, Section 9 | Restitution of conjugal rights | Wife sought restoration of marital cohabitation. The Family Court dismissed her petition. |
| Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, Section 13(1)(ia) | Divorce on ground of cruelty | Husband sought dissolution of marriage alleging cruelty. The Family Court initially dismissed his petition. |
| Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, Section 13 | Statutory grounds for divorce | Governs dissolution of a Hindu marriage on specified grounds, including cruelty. |
| Family Courts Act, 1984 | Jurisdiction and procedure of Family Courts in matrimonial disputes | The original matrimonial proceedings were decided by the Family Court before the matter reached the High Court in appeal. |
CASE DETAILS
| PARTICULAR | DETAIL |
|---|---|
| Case Title | V v. A |
| Case Number | CMA(MD) No. 1257 of 2024 |
| Court | Madras High Court, Madurai Bench |
| Bench | Justice G.R. Swaminathan and Justice M.D. Sumathi |
| Husband's Counsel | Mr. M. Subash Babu, Senior Counsel for Mr. C. Susikumar |
| Wife's Counsel | Mr. B. Arun |
| Nature of Case | Matrimonial appeal concerning divorce and restitution of conjugal rights |
| Husband's Case | Divorce on ground of cruelty |
| Wife's Case | Restitution of conjugal rights |
| Family Court Result | Both petitions dismissed |
| High Court Finding | Marriage found dead and broken down beyond repair |
| Financial Settlement | ā¹2.5 crore |
| Amount to Wife | ā¹1.5 crore |
| Amount to First Minor Child | ā¹50 lakh |
| Amount to Second Minor Child | ā¹50 lakh |
| Final Result | Marriage dissolved |
KEY TAKEAWAYS
- Homemaking Has No Gender: Madras HC said husbands can be homemakers just like wives.
- Men Need Not Always Be Providers: Traditional expectations that only husbands must financially provide deserve reconsideration.
- Career Choices Must Work Both Ways: A woman's career deserves space, but a husband's career and choices cannot become secondary by default.
- ā¹2.5 Crore Before Marriage Ended: The husband agreed to ā¹1.5 crore for the wife and ā¹50 lakh each for their two children.
- Equality Cannot Be Selective: If society accepts working wives and homemaker wives, it must equally accept working husbands and house husbands.
Share Your Thoughts
Comments are moderated before publication.