Chennai: In a notable judgment highlighting women’s autonomy in a marriage, the Madras High Court has observed that a wife cannot be expected to blindly follow her husband wherever his employment takes him, likening such an expectation to the behaviour of the iconic pug in the vintage Vodafone advertisement.
The division bench comprising Justices GR Swaminathan and MD Sumathi made the remark while dissolving the marriage of an estranged couple who had been living separately for 16 years. The court set aside an earlier order by the Sivagangai family court, which had rejected the 67-year-old husband’s plea for divorce.
The couple, who married in September 1992 and have four children, became estranged when the husband relocated to Mumbai for employment, leaving his wife behind in Tamil Nadu. He later filed for divorce alleging that his wife was in an adulterous relationship.
The family court had controversially dismissed his petition, ruling that the husband was ultimately responsible for the situation. It reasoned that overcoming sexual desire is “highly impracticable,” making it the solemn duty of a husband to take his wife with him wherever he goes to prevent any scope or rumour of adultery.
The High Court bench firmly rejected this reasoning, bringing clarity to marital obligations in modern professional setups.
-
On the Trial Court’s Logic: The bench remarked, “Radical feminists may applaud the revolutionary approach of the trial court. We say with regret that we cannot give our imprimatur.”
-
On Practical Constraints: Noting that spouses cannot always live together due to work commitments, the court added, “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 ‘Pug’ Analogy: Emphasising a woman’s agency, the judges observed, “The wife could be gainfully employed. She cannot be expected to conduct herself like the pug in the unforgettable Vodafone ad.”
While the High Court rejected the husband’s adultery claim—noting that he failed to legally implead the alleged paramour in the proceedings—it ultimately granted the divorce. Relying on Supreme Court precedents regarding the irretrievable breakdown of marriage, the bench highlighted that the couple’s 16-year separation, “bad blood,” and the wife’s lack of effort to reconcile amounted to a complete breakdown of marital bonds.
The court directed the husband to pay a one-time alimony of ₹7 lakh, specifying that the divorce decree would only come into effect once the amount is deposited.