Case at a Glance
A 67-year-old husband's divorce petition on the ground of adultery was dismissed by the Family Court, Sivagangai, which held that by moving to Mumbai for work he was taking advantage of his own wrong. The Madras High Court disagreed with that reasoning, but noted that the adultery plea was in any case defective because the alleged partner had not been made a party. Treating 16 years of separation as cruelty, it dissolved the marriage, with the decree to take effect only once the husband deposits ₹7 lakh for the wife.
Background
The parties married on 10 September 1992 at Thevarambur and have four children. The husband left Sivagangai for work in Mumbai. They have lived apart for 16 years, and the wife took no steps to rejoin him.
The husband filed HMOP No. 6 of 2014 before the Family Court, Sivagangai, seeking divorce on the ground of adultery, without impleading the man named. On 15 September 2021 the Family Court dismissed the petition, holding that his move to Mumbai was a breach of marital obligation and that Section 23(1)(a) barred him from relying on adultery. He appealed.
The Question Before the Court
Was the husband barred from relief by Section 23(1)(a), and can the marriage be dissolved despite the defective adultery plea?
Wrong Reason Below, Right to Relief Overall
The Court explained that Section 23(1)(a) embodies the principle that no one may take advantage of his own wrong. But it disagreed that moving for work was such a wrong, observing that spouses may be employed or posted where a joint home is not feasible. It noted, however, that when adultery is pleaded the alleged partner must be joined, and the failure to do so is fatal, as held in Meenakshi v. Kannan; the trial judge could have rejected the plea on that ground.
Relying on Rakesh Raman v. Kavitha, the Court held that long separation, no cohabitation and mutual bitterness showed a marriage broken beyond repair, amounting to cruelty under Section 13(1)(ia). After a failed attempt at settlement, it dissolved the marriage and, under Section 25, directed the husband to pay ₹7 lakh to the wife, with the decree to take effect only on deposit of that sum before the Family Court.
What the Court Held
- Moving away for employment is not by itself a wrong barring relief under Section 23(1)(a).
- An adultery plea fails if the alleged partner is not impleaded.
- Sixteen years of separation and bitterness amount to cruelty under Section 13(1)(ia).
- The marriage was dissolved, conditional on deposit of ₹7 lakh as alimony for the wife.
Why It Matters
- Procedural requirements for adultery pleas are strictly applied.
- Working away from home is not treated as matrimonial misconduct.
- Conditional decrees ensure the wife is paid before the marriage ends.
For Litigants / For Counsel
For litigants
- If you allege adultery, the person named must be made a party.
- Even after a long separation, a court may require payment before divorce takes effect.
For counsel
- Implead the alleged co-respondent in adultery petitions.
- Plead cruelty from long separation as an alternative ground.
Key Takeaways
- Adultery plea was defective.
- Working away is not a wrong.
- Divorce granted for cruelty.
- ₹7 lakh to the wife first.
FAQs
Why did the adultery ground fail?
The alleged partner was not impleaded.
When does the divorce take effect?
Only on deposit of ₹7 lakh before the Family Court.
Did the Court rely on irretrievable breakdown?
It treated long separation and bitterness as cruelty, following Rakesh Raman.
Conclusion
The Madras High Court corrected the trial court's view that working away from home was a matrimonial wrong, and ended a long-dead marriage on fair terms for the wife.
Practical takeaway: get the procedure right for adultery, and plead cruelty in the alternative.