Husband Working Away From Wife Cannot Be Denied Divorce Plea On Adultery Ground, Says Madras High Court

The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court has set aside a Family Court order that had refused to dissolve a 34-year-old marriage, granting divorce while sharply criticising the trial judge's reasoning that a husband forfeits his right to allege adultery against his wife if he moves to another city for work without taking her along.

A division bench of Justice G.R. Swaminathan and Justice M.D. Sumathi was hearing an appeal filed by petitioner-husband against a 2021 order of the Family Court, Sivagangai, which had dismissed his plea for divorce from his wife.

Petitioner had approached the Family Court in 2014 alleging that his wife was in an adulterous relationship with a man. The Family Court, instead of examining whether that man ought to have been impleaded as a necessary party, went on to hold that petitioner could not be granted divorce because he himself was "taking advantage of his own wrong" under Section 23(1)(a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, since he had left Sivagangai to work in Mumbai. The trial judge reasoned that a husband is duty-bound to keep his wife with him wherever he goes and to satisfy her, failing which he cannot later accuse her of adultery.

The High Court found this reasoning impossible to endorse. "Radical feminists may applaud the revolutionary approach of the trial Court. We say with regret that we cannot give our imprimatur," the bench observed, adding that it may not always be feasible for a husband to take his wife along, giving the example of a soldier who cannot set up a marital home inside an army barrack. The wife, the Court said, "could be gainfully employed" and "cannot be expected to conduct herself like the pug in the unforgettable vodafone ad."

On the law, the bench clarified that Section 23(1)(a), which embodies the maxim Nullus Commodum Capere Potest De Injuria Sua Propria, bars relief only where a petitioner has committed a "serious or grave misconduct" that is "contrary to the rule of Right and Justice" not something as ordinary as taking up employment outside one's hometown.

It also specifically noted that when adultery is pleaded, the alleged paramour must be made a party to the case, failing which the plea is fatal, relying on its own earlier ruling in Meenakshi vs. Kannan. While the trial court could have rejected the adultery allegation on this ground of non-joinder, it chose instead to fault the husband for living apart from his wife.

Moving past what it called this "detour," the Court examined the larger facts. The couple had married in 1992 as per Hindu rites and customs and had four children through the wedlock, but the appellant, now 67 years old, and the respondent had been living separately for a full sixteen years, with the wife never having taken any step, not even sending a formal letter or notice, to seek reconciliation.

Relying on the Supreme Court's ruling in Shri Rakesh Raman vs. Kavitha, the bench held that such prolonged separation and complete breakdown of the marital bond amounts to cruelty under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act. "It would be more appropriate and fit to snap the marital tie," the Court held, noting that its own attempt to broker a settlement between the parties during the hearing had also failed.

The bench accordingly declared the marriage dissolved and granted divorce, while directing petitioner to pay Rs.7 lakh as alimony to respondent-wife. The decree will take effect only once this amount is deposited before the Family Court, Sivagangai, in the original case, after which it can be withdrawn by the wife. The appeal was allowed with no order as to costs, and the Family Court's 2021 order was set aside in its entirety.

Mr. S. Srinivasa Raghavan appeared for the appellant-husband, while Mr. C. Suresh Kannan represented the respondent-wife.

Case Title: AL vs. P

Date of Judgment: August 19, 2026

Bench: Justice G.R. Swaminathan and Justice M.D. Sumathi

Tags: