The Madras High Court has ruled that relocating for a job without one's spouse does not constitute a breach of marital obligations, rejecting the notion that a wife must unconditionally follow her husband. The court emphasized practicalities and individual autonomy, stating it's not always feasible for a spouse to relocate. While acknowledging the marriage's irretrievable breakdown after 16 years of separation, the court dissolved the marriage and ordered the husband to pay ₹7 lakh in alimony, clarifying the scope of marital misconduct under the Hindu Marriage Act.

The Madras High Court has ruled that relocating for a job without one's spouse does not constitute a breach of marital obligations, rejecting the notion that a wife must unconditionally follow her husband. The court emphasized practicalities and individual autonomy, stating it's not always feasible for a spouse to relocate. While acknowledging the marriage's irretrievable breakdown after 16 years of separation, the court dissolved the marriage and ordered the husband to pay ₹7 lakh in alimony, clarifying the scope of marital misconduct under the Hindu Marriage Act.

The Madras High Court has ruled that relocating for a job without one's spouse does not constitute a breach of marital obligations, rejecting the notion that a wife must unconditionally follow her husband. The court emphasized practicalities and individual autonomy, stating it's not always feasible for a spouse to relocate. While acknowledging the marriage's irretrievable breakdown after 16 years of separation, the court dissolved the marriage and ordered the husband to pay ₹7 lakh in alimony, clarifying the scope of marital misconduct under the Hindu Marriage Act.

Is moving to another city for job without taking your spouse along a breach of marital obligations? The Madras High Court says no, ruling that a wife cannot be expected to follow her husband wherever he goes—“like the pug in the Vodafone ad”.

The case arose from a divorce petition filed by a man before a family court in Sivagangai, alleging that his wife was in an adulterous relationship. The family court dismissed his plea, holding that he was seeking to take advantage of his own wrong under Section 23(1)(a) of the Hindu Marriage Act.

The trial court noted that the man had moved from Sivagangai to Mumbai for employment without taking his wife with him. It observed that it was “highly impracticable” for a person to suppress sexual desire and held that it was the husband’s solemn duty to take his wife with him wherever he went, according to a report by Bar & Bench.

Taking strong exception to these observations, the High Court noted that it may not always be feasible for a husband to take his wife along with him.

“Radical feminists may applaud the revolutionary approach of the trial court. We say with regret that we cannot give our imprimatur," it said.

The court asked if it is possible to set up a marital home in the army barracks if the husband is a soldier. "The wife could be gainfully employed. She cannot be expected to conduct herself like the pug in the unforgettable Vodafone ad,” the court remarked, as quoted by the portal.

The High Court further clarified that Section 23(1)(a) of the Hindu Marriage Act applies to serious or grave misconduct, or conduct contrary to principles of right and justice.

The court also rejected the man’s allegations of adultery, noting that the alleged paramour had not been made a party to the proceedings.

At the same time, the court observed that the marriage had broken down irretrievably. The couple had been living separately for 16 years, and the wife had taken no steps towards resuming cohabitation with her husband.

The court ultimately dissolved the marriage and directed the husband to pay ₹7 lakh in alimony to his wife.