Wife Cannot Be Expected To Follow Her Husband Like A Pug In A Vodafone Ad: Madras High Court On Woman’s Adultery

Can a husband be blamed for his wife’s alleged adultery simply because he moved for work without taking her along? The Madras High Court rejected this disturbing logic, saying a wife cannot be expected to follow her husband everywhere “like a pug”.

MADURAI: The Madras High Court has set aside a Family Court order that denied a husband a divorce and treated his decision to move to another city for employment without taking his wife along as a matrimonial wrong.

A Division Bench of Justice G.R. Swaminathan and Justice M.D. Sumathi was hearing an appeal filed by the husband against the Family Court, Sivagangai judgment dated September 15, 2021. The couple had married on September 10, 1992, according to Hindu rites and had four children. The husband later moved to Mumbai for employment. By the time the appeal was decided, he was 67 years old, and the couple had been living separately for 16 years.

The husband had sought divorce alleging that his wife was having an adulterous relationship with one Manoharan. However, Manoharan was not made a party to the proceedings. The High Court noted that where adultery is pleaded, the alleged paramour must be impleaded and failure to do so is fatal to the allegation.

Instead of rejecting the adultery allegation on this ground, the Family Court held that the husband was trying to take advantage of his own wrong under Section 23(1)(a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. It considered his decision to leave Sivagangai for employment in Mumbai without taking his wife along as a fundamental breach of marital obligation.

The Family Court observed that a husband is legally bound to maintain his wife and also carries a marital responsibility towards her. According to the Family Court, if a husband moves to another place, he should ordinarily take his wife with him, as prolonged separation may affect the marital relationship. It further reasoned that a husband who chooses to live separately from his wife and does not fulfil his marital obligations should not later accuse her of adultery or cruelty and seek divorce by taking advantage of a situation that, in the Family Court’s view, he himself had helped create.

The Madras High Court strongly disagreed with this reasoning and made it clear that merely moving elsewhere for employment cannot automatically be treated as misconduct by a husband.

The Bench remarked:

“Radical feminists may applaud the revolutionary approach of the trial Court. We say with regret that we cannot give our imprimatur. 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 High Court explained that the “wrong” under Section 23(1)(a) of the Hindu Marriage Act means serious or grave misconduct, an act contrary to right and justice, or something unlawful or inequitable. A husband shifting to another city for employment could not by itself be placed in that category.

The Court then examined the reality of the marriage. It noted that the parties had remained separated for 16 years and the wife had taken no step to rejoin the husband. The Court noted that she had not even sent a formal letter or notice seeking reunion.

Relying on the Supreme Court judgment in Shri Rakesh Raman v. Kavitha, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 497, the Bench held that prolonged separation, absence of cohabitation, complete breakdown of meaningful matrimonial bonds and continuing bitterness can amount to cruelty under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act.

The Court observed:

“In a given case where the marital relationship has broken down irretrievably, where there is a long separation and absence of cohabitation between the parties; then continuation of such a ‘marriage’ would only mean giving sanction to cruelty which each is inflicting on the other.”

The judges also personally interacted with the husband and wife in an attempt to reach an amicable settlement, but the effort failed. Finding that there was “so much of bad blood” between them and no realistic possibility of reunion, the High Court dissolved the marriage.

The Court, however, directed the husband to pay Rs 7 lakh as alimony to the wife under Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act. It clarified that the divorce decree would come into force only after the husband deposited this amount before the Family Court, Sivagangai.

EXPLANATORY TABLE OF LAWS & SECTIONS

CASE DETAILS

KEY TAKEAWAYS

• A husband taking up employment elsewhere cannot automatically be treated as committing a matrimonial wrong.
• A wife’s alleged adultery cannot be excused by shifting responsibility onto the husband merely because he lived separately for work.
• The Family Court’s reasoning placed an extraordinary burden on the husband to practically carry his wife wherever his job took him.
• Sixteen years of separation was finally recognised as a marriage broken beyond repair, after years of litigation and uncertainty for the husband.
• Even after succeeding in divorce, the husband was directed to pay ₹7 lakh, showing how matrimonial litigation can continue to impose financial consequences on men even at the point of exit.