‘Cannot Be Expected To Conduct Herself Like Vodafone Ad Pug’: Madras HC on Wife Relocating for Husband

The Madras High Court has observed that a wife cannot be expected to accompany her husband every time his employment requires him to move to another city, referring to Vodafone’s popular pug advertisement to make the point. The observation came during the hearing of a long-running matrimonial dispute involving a couple who had been living separately for 16 years.

A Division Bench of Justices GR Swaminathan and MD Sumathi overturned a family court order that had rejected the husband’s plea for divorce, Bar and Bench reported. While the High Court did not accept his allegation that his wife was involved in an adulterous relationship, it dissolved the marriage after finding that the relationship had broken down beyond repair. ‘Marriage Is Not a Service Contract’: Bombay High Court Says Wife Not Cooking or Cleaning Is Not Cruelty.

What Is The Case?

The couple married in September 1992 and have four children. By the time the matter reached the High Court, the husband was 67 years old. The dispute began after the husband moved from Sivagangai to Mumbai for employment without taking his wife with him.

He subsequently accused his wife of being involved in an adulterous relationship and sought a divorce. The Sivagangai family court had declined to grant the divorce, holding that the husband was attempting to benefit from his own conduct under Section 23(1)(a) of the Hindu Marriage Act. ‘Be Happy, No Alimony Asked’: Supreme Court Grants Divorce, Orders Man To Pay INR 50 Lakh Despite Wife Not Seeking It.

The trial court had reasoned that overcoming s*xual desire was “highly impracticable” and that a husband had a solemn obligation to take his wife with him wherever he went.

Madras High Court Rejects Family Court Reasoning

The High Court disagreed with the reasoning that employment circumstances necessarily require a wife to accompany her husband.

“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 Bench said.

The judges noted that the same principle could apply in reverse. A husband, they observed, may also not always be able to take his wife with him when professional circumstances require relocation.

The Bench also criticised the approach taken by the family court.

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

Court Explains Scope Of ‘Wrong’ Under Marriage Law

The High Court also examined the meaning of the “wrong” referred to under Section 23(1)(a) of the Hindu Marriage Act.

According to the Bench, the provision applies to serious or grave misconduct, or conduct that runs contrary to principles of right and justice.

The judges therefore rejected the suggestion that the husband's decision to relocate for employment, by itself, amounted to conduct that prevented him from seeking a divorce.

Adultery Allegation Rejected

The High Court did not accept the husband's allegation that his wife had committed adultery.

The alleged paramour had not been made a party to the proceedings.

Referring to an earlier Madras High Court ruling, the Bench held that where adultery is alleged, the person accused of being the paramour must be impleaded. According to the court, failure to do so is fatal to the adultery allegation.

The adultery charge therefore did not form the basis for granting the divorce.

Court Finds Marriage Beyond Repair

The judges, however, took note of the couple's prolonged separation and the absence of any meaningful effort by the wife to resume the marriage.

The court observed that she had neither attempted to return to her husband nor sent him a formal communication seeking to restore the relationship.

“We are more than satisfied that the relationship between the parties has broken down beyond repair," the Bench said.

The judges had also personally interacted with the couple in an attempt to explore a settlement.

That effort failed, with the court finding “so much of bad blood” between the spouses and no realistic prospect of reconciliation.

Divorce Granted After 16-Year Separation

The High Court consequently dissolved the marriage.

The husband was directed to pay INR 7 lakh to his wife as alimony.

The divorce decree will take effect only after the amount is deposited before the family court.

The ruling addresses the circumstances of this particular matrimonial dispute and does not mean that spouses are never required to consider each other's circumstances when employment or relocation decisions are made. The court's observation was focused on rejecting the proposition that a wife must invariably follow her husband whenever his job requires him to move.

(The above story first appeared on LatestLY on Sep 03, 2026 01:19 PM IST. For more news and updates on politics, world, sports, entertainment and lifestyle, log on to our website latestly.com).