Madras High Court’s Observations on Marital Obligations
In a noteworthy decision, the Madras High Court recently addressed the expectations of marital obligations in a matrimonial dispute. The court observed that a wife cannot be expected to follow her husband like the pug in the popular Vodafone advertisement. Similarly, a husband is not mandated to take his wife with him whenever he relocates for employment reasons.
The Division Bench, comprising Justices GR Swaminathan and MD Sumathi, made these observations while overturning a family court’s decision that had criticized a husband for relocating without his wife. According to the family court, the husband’s actions breached marital obligations, but the High Court disagreed with this reasoning.
Court’s Reasoning and Rejection of Family Court’s View
The High Court emphasized the practical realities of modern life, noting that it may not always be feasible for spouses to live together continuously. For instance, if a husband serves in the military, establishing a marital home within army barracks is impractical. Additionally, the court recognized that the wife might have her own employment obligations.
The High Court’s remarks came during the appeal of a Sivagangai family court order that dismissed the husband’s divorce petition. The husband had alleged his wife was involved in an adulterous relationship, but the family court had accused him of exploiting his own wrongdoing under Section 23(1)(a) of the Hindu Marriage Act by moving to Mumbai for work without his wife.
High Court’s Disapproval of the Family Court’s Findings
The High Court expressed disapproval of the family court’s findings, stating that its revolutionary approach was not justifiable. The Bench clarified that the misconduct referred to in Section 23(1)(a) must be serious or contrary to justice, and the husband’s relocation did not meet this criterion.
Furthermore, the High Court did not uphold the husband’s adultery allegations, noting that the alleged paramour was not included as a party in the proceedings. The court reiterated an earlier ruling that failure to implead the alleged paramour is detrimental to an adultery claim.
Conclusion and Final Judgment
The court recognized that the couple had been separated for 16 years and that their relationship had irreparably broken down. Citing the Supreme Court’s decision in Rakesh Raman v. Kavitha, the Bench observed that prolonged separation and lack of cohabitation may constitute cruelty under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act.
Despite attempts at mediation, the court found that reconciliation was impossible due to the ‘bad blood’ between the parties. Consequently, the High Court dissolved the marriage and ordered the husband to provide ₹7 lakh as alimony to the wife. The divorce decree will be effective once the alimony is deposited in the family court. Advocate S Srinivasa Raghavan represented the husband, while Advocate C Suresh Kannan appeared for the wife.
