Srinagar, Sep 3: The Madras High Court recently made the observation that a woman cannot be expected to follow her husband wherever he goes like the pug (dog breed) in the Vodafone ad. The court was hearing a matrimonial dispute case.
A bench of Justices G R Swaminathan and M D Sumathi came down heavily on the family court, saying it had adopted a “revolutionary approach” when it held that a husband who moves away for employment cannot later seek divorce on the ground of his wife’s alleged adultery.
“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 court said on August 19. The judgment was made publicly available on August 31, The Indian Express reported.
The high court held that the relationship had broken down beyond repair after 16 years of separation and directed the husband to pay Rs 7 lakh as alimony to his wife. The divorce decree would only be effective upon deposit of the amount.
The couple married on September 10, 1992, according to Hindu rites and had four children. The husband, 67, later moved away from his wife for employment and worked in Mumbai. The couple remained separated after 16 years of marriage.
The court noted that the wife had not taken any step to continue the relationship with the husband. “Even a formal letter or notice was not sent by her,” it remarked.
Justices G R Swaminathan and M D Sumathi Justices G R Swaminathan and M D Sumathi remarked that the wife could be gainfully employed. She cannot be expected to conduct herself like the pug in the Vodafone advertisement.
In 2014, the husband approached the family court seeking dissolution of the marriage. He alleged that his wife was in an adulterous relationship with another man. However, the family court dismissed his divorce petition, holding that the husband was taking advantage of his own wrong because he had left his wife behind while moving elsewhere for work.
“Legally speaking, the husband is bound to maintain his wife. It is highly impracticable for anyone to overcome the impulse of sexual desire. Therefore, it remains the solemn duty of every husband that wherever he goes, he shall take his wife with him and he shall not be a cause for adultery or for any rumor for adultery,” the family court observed. The husband challenged the decision before the high court.
The court held that under the Hindu Marriage Act, a spouse cannot obtain divorce by taking advantage of their own serious or grave misconduct. However, the court disagreed with the family court’s view that the husband’s decision to leave for employment in Mumbai amounted to a breach of marital obligation.
The bench noted that we are more than satisfied that the relationship between the parties has broken down beyond repair.
The court also interacted with the parties to explore an amicable settlement, but the effort failed. “Considering the nature of the allegations and the counter-allegations, we are satisfied that there is so much bad blood that there is simply no possibility of reunion,” the order concluded.
Speaking about the judgment, Supreme Court advocate Charu Mathur said the high court was right in not endorsing the family court’s view that a wife is expected to simply follow her husband. However, she frowned upon the analogy used.
“The analogy adopted by the high court, comparing a wife to the Vodafone pug following its master, is deeply unfortunate. A wife is an equal partner in a marriage, with autonomy and agency of her own. She is not a follower, much less a pet. Judicial language carries weight far beyond the facts of an individual case, and metaphors of this nature risk reinforcing precisely the gender stereotypes that the law should be moving away from,” Mathur said.
“One can agree with the legal outcome while still questioning the language used to arrive at it. It’s regrettable that the decision, which is actually progressive, is getting marred in controversy because of the analogy adopted,” she added.
