The bench of Justice GR Swaminathan and Justice MD Sumathi held that while some radical feminists might applaud the order of the Family Court, it could not subscribe to such a view.

The bench held that it is not possible for a husband to always take the wife along to the place of employment.

“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,” the court said.

The court was hearing an appeal filed by the Husband against the Family Court's refusal to grant him divorce on the grounds of adultery. The court noted that though the husband had pleaded adultery, he had not made the paramour a party to the proceedings, which was fatal.

However, the court noted that instead of dismissing the plea for non-joinder of necessary party, the Family Court had held that the husband was taking advantage of his own wrong. The Family Court had held that the husband had left the wife to work in Mumbai, which constituted a fundamental breach of marital obligations.

The Family Court had noted that if the husband was living jointly with the wife and satisfying her sexual desire, he could have pleaded adultery as a ground for divorce. But, according to the Family Court, the husband failed to take his wife with him, and it was highly impractical for anyone to overcome the impulse of sexual desire. Thus, the Family Court refused to grant him a divorce on that ground.

While the High Court disagreed with the approach of the Family Court, it noted that the parties had been living separately for 16 years. The court noted that the wife had not taken any step for rejoining or sent a formal letter to the husband. The court was thus satisfied that the relationship between the parties had broken beyond repair. The court noted that continuation of such marriage would only mean subjecting the parties to cruelty.

“In a given case where the marital relationship has broken down irretrievably, where there is a long separation and absence of cohabitation between the parties; then continuation of such a 'marriage' would only mean giving sanction to cruelty which each is inflicting on the other,” the court said.

Thus, the court granted a decree of divorce. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, the court also directed the husband to pay Rs. 7 lakh to the wife as alimony.

Counsel for Petitioner: Mr. S. Srinivasa Raghavan

Counsel for Respondents: Mr. C. Suresh Kannan

Case Title: A v P

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 420

Case No: CMA(MD) No.967 of 2021