Source : INDIA TODAY NEWS
A wife cannot be expected to follow her husband wherever he goes like the famous pug from Vodafone’s old advertisement, the Madras High Court has observed while dealing with a long-running matrimonial dispute, Bar & Bench reported. The court made the observation while setting aside a family court order that had rejected a man’s divorce plea, partly on the ground that he had moved from Tamil Nadu’s Sivagangai to Mumbai for work without taking his wife with him.
advertisement
The High Court made it clear that marriage does not necessarily mean that a couple must live together at every stage of their lives, particularly when work, circumstances or personal commitments make it difficult.
‘IT MAY NOT ALWAYS BE FEASIBLE TO TAKE THE WIFE ALONG’
A Division Bench of Justices GR Swaminathan and MD Sumathi said a husband cannot always be expected to take his wife with him whenever he has to relocate for employment. “It may not always be feasible to take the wife along,” the Bench said. Giving an example, it noted that if a husband is a soldier, it may not be possible for him to establish a family home inside army barracks.
The judges also pointed out that a wife may herself have a job or other responsibilities. “She cannot be expected to conduct herself like the pug in the unforgettable Vodafone ad,” the court remarked.
The observation came after the Sivagangai family court had concluded that the husband had failed in his marital responsibilities by leaving for Mumbai without taking his wife with him.
COUPLE HAD LIVED APART FOR 16 YEARS
The couple had married in September 1992 and had four children. By the time the High Court heard the matter, the husband was 67 and the couple had already been living separately for 16 years.
The husband had accused his wife of having an adulterous relationship. However, the family court did not grant him a divorce. Instead, it held that he was seeking to benefit from his own conduct because he had moved to Mumbai for employment without taking his wife along.
The family court had reasoned that it was highly impracticable for a person to overcome sexual desire and that a husband had a duty to take his wife wherever he went.
The High Court disagreed with this approach. “Radical feminists may applaud the revolutionary approach of the trial court. We say with regret that we cannot give our imprimatur,” the Bench said.
The judges stressed that simply living apart because of employment cannot automatically be treated as serious marital misconduct.
COURT ALSO REJECTS ADULTERY CLAIM
At the same time, the High Court did not accept the husband’s allegation of adultery.
The Bench noted that the man whom the husband had allegedly accused of having a relationship with his wife had not been made a party to the case. Referring to an earlier Madras High Court ruling, the judges said that when adultery is alleged, the alleged partner must also be brought into the proceedings. Failure to do so, the court said, was fatal to the adultery claim.
The judges also took note of the fact that the wife had not made any attempt to resume living with her husband, including by sending a formal letter or notice seeking his return.
‘MARRIAGE HAD BROKEN DOWN BEYOND REPAIR’
The Bench said the dispute had gone far beyond an ordinary marital disagreement. “We are more than satisfied that the relationship between the parties has broken down beyond repair,” it observed.
The judges also personally interacted with the couple in an attempt to find an amicable solution, but the effort failed. The High Court noted that there was “so much bad blood” between the spouses and no realistic possibility of them coming together again.
Referring to the Supreme Court’s ruling in Rakesh Raman v. Kavitha, the Bench held that a prolonged separation, lack of cohabitation and the complete collapse of meaningful marital ties can, in appropriate circumstances, amount to cruelty and justify ending a marriage.
The High Court therefore dissolved the marriage. However, it directed the husband to pay 7 lakh as alimony to his wife. The divorce decree will take effect only after the amount is deposited before the family court.
– Ends
SOURCE :- TIMES OF INDIA
