A wife cannot be expected to follow her husband wherever he goes like the pug (dog breed) in the Vodafone ad, the Madras High Court recently observed while dealing with a matrimonial dispute.

Likewise, a husband cannot always take along a wife with him when he has to shift for employment, the Court said.

A Division Bench of Justices GR Swaminathan and MD Sumathi made the remark while rejecting a family court view that husband had breached marital obligations by moving to another city for work without taking his wife along.

"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.

It made the observations while setting aside a Sivagangai family court order that had dismissed the husband’s divorce petition.

The husband had alleged that his wife was in an adulterous relationship. However, the family court held that the husband was taking advantage of his own wrong under Section 23(1)(a) of the Hindu Marriage Act because he had left Sivagangai for employment in Mumbai without taking his wife along.

The family court reasoned that it was “highly impracticable” for anyone to overcome sexual desire and that it was the solemn duty of a husband to take his wife wherever he went.

Hence, it dismissed the husband's petition for divorce.

The couple had married in September 1992 and had four children. By the time the appeal was heard, the husband was 67 years old and the parties had been living separately for 16 years.

The High Court disapproved of this reasoning.

“Radical feminists may applaud the revolutionary approach of the trial court. We say with regret that we cannot give our imprimatur.”

The Bench said it may not always be feasible for spouses to live together. A soldier, for instance, could not set up a marital home in army barracks, since his wife could herself be gainfully employed.

The High Court also explained that the “wrong” contemplated under Section 23(1)(a) means serious or grave misconduct, or conduct contrary to right and justice.

However, the High Court did not accept the adultery allegation made by the husband either.

It noted that the alleged paramour had not been made a party to the proceedings. Relying on an earlier Madras High Court ruling, the Bench said that when adultery is pleaded, the alleged paramour must be impleaded and failure to do so is fatal to the plea.

The Court noted that the wife had not taken any step towards rejoining her husband, including by sending a formal letter or notice.

“We are more than satisfied that the relationship between the parties has broken down beyond repair.”

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

The judges also interacted with the parties in an attempt to arrive at an amicable settlement, but the effort failed.

Finding that there was “so much of bad blood” and there was no possibility of reunion, the High Court dissolved the marriage.

It directed the husband to pay ₹7 lakh as alimony to the wife. The divorce decree would come into force only after the amount is deposited before the family court.

Advocate S Srinivasa Raghavan appeared for the husband

Advocate C Suresh Kannan represented the wife.