Madras HC: Wife Not ‘Vodafone Pug’ to Follow Husband Everywhere
Total Views |
Chennai, September 4: The Madras High Court has observed that a wife cannot be expected to follow her husband wherever he goes for employment, likening such an expectation to the famous Vodafone pug advertisement.
The couple had married on September 10, 1992, and had four children. The husband subsequently moved to Mumbai for employment, and the couple remained separated for 16 years. He later sought divorce, alleging adultery by his wife.
The Family Court had rejected his divorce plea, holding, among other things, that the husband had left Sivagangai for work without taking his wife with him and had thereby contributed to the circumstances leading to the marital breakdown. It had also reasoned that overcoming sexual desire was highly impracticable and that the husband had a duty to take his wife wherever he went.
The High Court disagreed with this reasoning. The Bench observed that it may not always be feasible for a husband to take his wife along. “Suppose the husband is a soldier, it is not possible to set up a marital home in the army barracks,” the court noted. A wife may also have employment of her own, it said.
The Bench then made its widely reported reference to the Vodafone advertisement, observing that “she cannot be expected to conduct herself like the pug in the unforgettable Vodafone ad.”
The High Court also rejected the Family Court's approach under Section 23(1)(a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, saying that the “wrong” contemplated under the provision must involve serious or grave misconduct.
At the same time, the High Court did not accept the husband's allegation of adultery, noting that the alleged paramour had not been made a party to the proceedings.
The Bench ultimately held that the marriage had “broken down beyond repair”, considering the prolonged separation, absence of meaningful marital relations and failed attempts at reconciliation. Relying on the Supreme Court's decision in Rakesh Raman v. Kavitha, it treated the circumstances as constituting cruelty and dissolved the marriage. The husband was directed to pay ₹7 lakh as alimony to his wife.
The judgment was delivered on August 19 and made public on August 31.
A Division Bench of Justices G.R. Swaminathan and M.D. Sumathi made the observation while setting aside an order of the Sivagangai Family Court in a matrimonial dispute.
The couple had married on September 10, 1992, and had four children. The husband subsequently moved to Mumbai for employment, and the couple remained separated for 16 years. He later sought divorce, alleging adultery by his wife.
The Family Court had rejected his divorce plea, holding, among other things, that the husband had left Sivagangai for work without taking his wife with him and had thereby contributed to the circumstances leading to the marital breakdown. It had also reasoned that overcoming sexual desire was highly impracticable and that the husband had a duty to take his wife wherever he went.
The High Court disagreed with this reasoning. The Bench observed that it may not always be feasible for a husband to take his wife along. “Suppose the husband is a soldier, it is not possible to set up a marital home in the army barracks,” the court noted. A wife may also have employment of her own, it said.
ALSO READ:Dharti Pakad’ Nagarmal Bajoria Dies at 96, Leaves Behind a Unique Electoral Legacy
The High Court also rejected the Family Court's approach under Section 23(1)(a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, saying that the “wrong” contemplated under the provision must involve serious or grave misconduct.
At the same time, the High Court did not accept the husband's allegation of adultery, noting that the alleged paramour had not been made a party to the proceedings.
The Bench ultimately held that the marriage had “broken down beyond repair”, considering the prolonged separation, absence of meaningful marital relations and failed attempts at reconciliation. Relying on the Supreme Court's decision in Rakesh Raman v. Kavitha, it treated the circumstances as constituting cruelty and dissolved the marriage. The husband was directed to pay ₹7 lakh as alimony to his wife.
The judgment was delivered on August 19 and made public on August 31.