MADURAI: Granting divorce to a couple who lived separately for 16 years, the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court observed that prolonged separation, absence of cohabitation and complete breakdown of meaningful marital bonds could amount to cruelty.
The division bench comprising Justices GR Swaminathan and MD Sumathi passed the order on a husband's appeal against the Sivaganga family court that had refused to dissolve his marriage.
The couple got married in September 1992 and have four children. The husband had filed for divorce, alleging adultery by the wife.
Though Section 13(1) (i) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, states that adultery is a ground for seeking divorce, before granting relief, the court must be satisfied that the petitioner is not taking advantage of his or her own wrong.
However, the family court judge had his own interpretation of the provision. The High Court noted that when adultery is pleaded, the paramour must be made a party to the proceedings, and failure to do so by the family court is fatal.
Instead, the family court reasoned that the husband had contributed to his wife's alleged adultery by leaving her behind in Sivaganga to take up a job in Mumbai.
The High Court disagreed with this reasoning. “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 observed.
The bench held that long separation, absence of cohabitation, complete breakdown of meaningful bonds and existing bitterness between the parties could be read as cruelty under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, and granted divorce to the couple.
“...We are satisfied that there is much bad blood that there is simply no possibility of a reunion,” the court observed.
It also directed the husband to pay Rs 7 lakh as alimony to the wife.