Chennai, September 3: The Madras High Court has made a significant observation that a woman cannot be expected to follow her husband wherever he goes, likening the notion to the behaviour of the pug in the iconic Vodafone advertisement. The remarks were made during the hearing of a matrimonial dispute case.
Information was available with The Chenab Times that a bench comprising Justices G.R. Swaminathan and M.D. Sumathi critically reviewed a family court’s decision. The family court had previously ruled that a husband seeking a divorce on grounds of his wife’s alleged adultery could not do so if he had moved away for employment.
The High Court bench expressed disagreement with this stance, stating, “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.” These observations were made on August 19 and the judgment was made public on August 31, as reported by The Indian Express.
The High Court concluded that the relationship between the couple had irrevocably broken down after 16 years of separation. Consequently, the court directed the husband to pay Rs 7 lakh as permanent alimony to his wife. The divorce decree would only become effective upon the husband depositing this amount.
The couple had solemnized their marriage according to Hindu rites on September 10, 1992, and have four children. The husband, who is 67 years old, later relocated for employment, working in Mumbai while remaining separated from his wife for 16 years following their marriage.
The court noted that the wife had not initiated any steps to reconcile or continue the relationship with her husband, observing that she had not even sent a formal letter or notice.
In 2014, the husband had approached the family court seeking the dissolution of their marriage, alleging that his wife was involved in an adulterous relationship. However, the family court dismissed his petition, reasoning that the husband was benefiting from his own wrongdoing by leaving his wife behind while he moved for work.
The family court had previously observed, “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 husband subsequently challenged this decision in the High Court.
While the High Court acknowledged that under the Hindu Marriage Act, a spouse cannot secure a divorce by capitalizing on their own serious misconduct, it diverged from the family court’s interpretation that the husband’s relocation for employment constituted a breach of marital obligation.
The bench indicated its strong conviction that the marital relationship had deteriorated beyond the point of repair.
During the proceedings, the court attempted to facilitate an amicable settlement between the parties, but these efforts proved unsuccessful. The order concluded, “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.”
Supreme Court advocate Charu Mathur commented on the judgment, agreeing that the High Court was correct in not endorsing the family court’s expectation that a wife should blindly follow her husband. However, she expressed disapproval of the specific 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 stated. She added, “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.”
❤️ Support Independent Journalism
Your contribution keeps our reporting free, fearless, and accessible to everyone.
Or make a one-time donation
Secure via Razorpay • 12 monthly payments • Cancel anytime before next cycle
(We don't allow anyone to copy content. For Copyright or Use of Content related questions, visit here.)
The Chenab Times News Desk
