The Madras High Court (HC), while hearing a long-standing marital dispute, remarked on Thursday that a wife cannot be expected to follow her husband wherever he goes like the pug from the iconic Vodafone advertisement.

A division bench of the HC, comprising Justices GR Swaminathan and MD Sumathi made the remarks while setting aside an order of the Sivagangai family court, which had junked a man’s divorce petition after noting that he had violated his marital obligations by moving to another city for employment without taking his wife along.

“May not be feasible always”: HC

The HC ruled that circumstances may make it impractical for a husband and wife to live together at all times.

The Bench said, “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 court also clarified that a husband cannot necessarily be expected to take his wife with him every time his job requires him to relocate. Its observations came in an appeal against an order issued by the Sivagangai family court.

The husband concerned had alleged that his wife was involved in an adulterous relationship. However, the family court had held that he was trying to take advantage of his own wrong under Section 23(1)(a) of the Hindu Marriage Act.

The family court had taken exception to the husband leaving Sivagangai for employment in Mumbai without taking his wife with him. It reasoned that overcoming sexual desire was ‘highly impracticable’ and that it was the solemn duty of the man to take his wife wherever he went. Subsequently, the divorce petition was dismissed.

HC trashes family court’s reasoning

The HC, however, disagreed with this reasoning. It observed, “Radical feminists may applaud the revolutionary approach of the trial court. We say with regret that we cannot give our imprimatur.”

Furthermore, it clarified that the ‘wrong’ contemplated under Section 23(1)(a) must involve serious or grave misconduct, or such conduct which is contrary to justice and right.

Concurrently, the HC did not accept the husband’s allegation of adultery. It observed that the alleged paramour had not been made a party to the proceedings.

Citing a previous order issued by the Madras HC, the bench said that where adultery is alleged, the paramour under question must be impleaded, and failure to do so is fatal to such a plea. The court also observed that the wife had not taken steps to rejoin her husband, including by sending a formal notice or letter.

“Marriage broken beyond repair”: HC

The couple got hitched in September 1992 and had four children. By the time the appeal was heard, the husband was 67 years old, while the couple had parted ways for 16 years. The bench opined, “We are more than satisfied that the relationship between the parties has broken down beyond repair.”

Relying on the Supreme Court’s ruling in Rakesh Raman v Kavitha, the HC held that prolonged separation, absence of cohabitation and the complete breakdown of meaningful marital bonds can amount to cruelty under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act.