The Madras Excessive Courtroom just lately criticised an order handed by a Household Courtroom, refusing to grant divorce to the husband on the bottom of spouse’s adultery and remarking that the husband, by not taking the spouse to his place of employment, had enabled the adultery. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 420]
The bench of Justice GR Swaminathan and Justice MD Sumathi held that whereas some radical feminists would possibly applaud the order of the Household Courtroom, it couldn’t subscribe to such a view.
The bench held that it shouldn’t be doable for a husband to at all times take the spouse alongside to the place of employment.
“Radical feminists might applaud the revolutionary strategy of the trial Courtroom. We are saying with remorse that we can’t give our imprimatur. It might not at all times be possible to take the spouse alongside. Suppose the husband is a soldier, it’s not doable to arrange a marital house within the military barracks. The spouse could possibly be gainfully employed. She can’t be anticipated to conduct herself just like the pug within the unforgettable vodafone advert,” the courtroom mentioned.
The courtroom was listening to an enchantment filed by the Husband towards the Household Courtroom’s refusal to grant him divorce on the grounds of adultery. The courtroom famous that although the husband had pleaded adultery, he had not made the paramour a celebration to the proceedings, which was deadly.
Nevertheless, the courtroom famous that as an alternative of dismissing the plea for non-joinder of vital occasion, the Household Courtroom had held that the husband was making the most of his personal fallacious. The Household Courtroom had held that the husband had left the spouse to work in Mumbai, which constituted a basic breach of marital obligations.
The Household Courtroom had famous that if the husband was residing collectively with the spouse and satisfying her sexual want, he may have pleaded adultery as a floor for divorce. However, in line with the Household Courtroom, the husband didn’t take his spouse with him, and it was extremely impractical for anybody to beat the impulse of sexual want. Thus, the Household Courtroom refused to grant him a divorce on that floor.
Whereas the Excessive Courtroom disagreed with the strategy of the Household Courtroom, it famous that the events had been residing individually for 16 years. The courtroom famous that the spouse had not taken any step for rejoining or despatched a formal letter to the husband. The courtroom was thus happy that the relationship between the events had damaged past restore. The courtroom famous that continuation of such marriage would solely imply subjecting the events to cruelty.
“In a given case the place the conjugal relationship has damaged down irretrievably, the place there’s a lengthy separation and absence of cohabitation between the events; then continuation of such a ‘marriage’ would solely imply giving sanction to cruelty which every is inflicting on the opposite,” the courtroom mentioned.
Thus, the courtroom granted a decree of divorce. Contemplating the general info and circumstances of the case, the courtroom additionally directed the husband to pay Rs. 7 lakh to the spouse as alimony.
Counsel for Petitioner: Mr. S. Srinivasa Raghavan
Counsel for Respondents: Mr. C. Suresh Kannan
Case Title: A v P
Quotation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 420
Case No: CMA(MD) No.967 of 2021
