Men must unlearn notion that marriage entitles them to unquestioned authority: Madras High Court

The Madras High Court recently observed that the Indian marriage system must evolve from the shadow of male chauvinism into the light of equality and mutual respect.

Justice L Victoria Gowri said that the misplaced endurance of women in bad marriages has emboldened generations of men to control and subjugate women. The judge made the comments in a judgment relating to a matrimonial dispute between an elderly couple, who had married in 1965.

“The victim in this case, now an octogenarian, is emblematic of that generation of Indian women who bore persistent mental and emotional cruelty with stoic silence, hoping that endurance was their virtue and tolerance their duty. Such misplaced endurance, often glorified in societal narratives, has emboldened generations of men to exercise control, dominance, and neglect under the garb of patriarchal privilege,” the Court said.

It stressed that men must “unlearn this inherited dogma” that marriage entitles them to unquestioned authority, adding that they must begin to understand that comfort, safety, needs and dignity of their wives are not secondary duties but core obligations of the marital bond, especially in their twilight years.

Commenting on the law against abuse of wives in their matrimonial homes, the Court said that when Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) extends its protective mantle to women, it does so not merely to punish, but to awaken social conscience. 

While courts remain cautious of over-criminalisation of familial disputes, equally, the invisibility of domestic cruelty cannot be allowed to cloak impunity, it added.

“The message that emanates from this judgment must resonate beyond the confines of the courtroom: that the endurance of women, particularly elderly wives, should no longer be mistaken for consent, nor their silence for acceptance. The Indian marriage system, while rooted in noble ideals, must evolve from the shadow of male chauvinism into the light of equality and mutual respect."

The wife had challenged the setting aside of the conviction and sentence imposed on her husband by a judicial magistrate in a case under Section 498-A of the IPC.

On re-consideration of the record and evidence, the High Court found that the sessions court’s acquittal of the husband was vitiated by misdirection and non-consideration of material evidence. 

“I have no hesitation to hold that Accused No.1 is guilty under Section 498-A IPC, for the simple reason that on the evidence recorded by the learned Trial Court, the ingredients of Section 498-A IPC has been clearly established against the Accused No.1. The nature of emotional and economic abuse inflicted on the defacto complainant, compelling her to pursue several cases endlessly without giving quietus to the dispute for nearly 18 years since 16.02.2007, the date on which she was subjected to isolation would amount to “cruelty” warranting conviction,” the Court said, as it restored the conviction of husband.

It also held that the wife would be entitled to maintenance of ₹20,000 per month.

The conviction of an octogenarian husband in this case is not an act of vengeance, but an assertion of the principle that age cannot sanctify cruelty and that no marital bond can justify indignity, the judge clarified.

In the epilogue of the judgment, the Court said that protecting octogenarian women who have lived entire lifetimes within oppressive domestic environments is not merely an act of legal redress, but a reaffirmation of the constitutional promise of dignity under Article 21. 

“It is a tribute to those women who, despite their frailty, stand before the Courts seeking not revenge, but recognition of their suffering and restoration of their dignity,” it added.

Advocate D Saravanan represented the wife.

Government Advocate M Sakthikumar represented the State.

Advocate N Dilip Kumar represented the husband.