The Madras High Court has dissolved a marriage following a 16-year separation, setting aside a lower court decision that had denied a husband a divorce on the grounds that moving away for employment contributed to his wife’s alleged infidelity.
A division bench comprising Justice G. R. Swaminathan and Justice M. D. Sumathi ruled that the marital bond had broken down beyond repair. The court made the decree of dissolution contingent upon the 67-year-old husband depositing Rs 7 lakh as alimony for his estranged wife. While delivered on August 19, the judgment was released into the public domain on August 31.
Overturning the Lower Court Ruling
The legal dispute dates back to 2014, when the husband approached a family court seeking an end to the marriage, alleging that his wife was engaged in an adulterous relationship. The family court dismissed his petition, holding that by relocating to Mumbai for work and leaving his wife behind, the husband was taking advantage of his own wrongdoing. The lower court reasoned that husbands bear a legal obligation to cohabit with their spouses to manage sexual impulses and prevent circumstances that could lead to adultery.
Rejecting that stance on appeal, the High Court determined that relocating for career opportunities does not amount to a breach of marital duties. While acknowledging that provisions under the Hindu Marriage Act prevent a party from benefiting from their own grave misconduct, the bench concluded that the husband’s professional move could not be construed as such a fault.
The justices noted that modern circumstances often make continuous cohabitation unfeasible, citing instances where husbands serve in military barracks or where wives are independently employed. In rejecting the lower court’s logic that a spouse must shadow their partner everywhere, the bench drew a comparison to the pug featured in Vodafone’s well-known advertising campaign, stating that a wife cannot be expected to follow her husband in such a manner.
Irretrievable Breakdown of Marriage
The couple wed in accordance with Hindu traditions on September 10, 1992, and had four children together before separating.
In assessing the state of the relationship, the High Court emphasized that the separation had lasted for 16 years without any effort from the wife to sustain the partnership, observing that she had not sent even a formal letter or legal notice during that period. The judges also attempted to facilitate an amicable resolution through personal interactions with both parties. However, the bench observed that severe acrimony and mutual accusations between the spouses eliminated any prospect of reconciliation.
Legal Scrutiny Over Judicial Metaphor
Reacting to the ruling, Supreme Court advocate Charu Mathur supported the High Court’s dismissal of the notion that women are obligated to follow their husbands. However, Mathur expressed concern regarding the imagery used by the bench.
Mathur noted that drawing a comparison between a wife and a pet dog was regrettable, stressing that a wife is an autonomous, equal partner rather than a follower. She cautioned that judicial metaphors hold wide influence and warned that such phrasing risks reinforcing archaic gender stereotypes, even within decisions that are otherwise legally sound and progressive.
