The Madras High Court, while dissolving the marriage of a doctor couple by mutual consent, observed that society must accept "house husbands" as a new normal to preserve the institution of family.

The Court also noted that women often sacrifice their own career ambitions to support their husbands' professional growth, only to be left abandoned when the male ego asserts itself after success.

The Division Bench of Justice GR Swaminathan and Justice MD Sumathi observed, "If there can be house wives, there can be house husbands also. Let this become a new normal. We are of the view that this would help preserve the institution of marriage and family. The expression home maker is gender neutral. Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary defines “home maker” as a person who works at home and takes care of the house and family. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has been underlining the fact that the tasks carried out by a house wife as a home maker have enormous economic value."

Senior Advocate M Subhash Babu appeared for the Petitioner/Husband, while Advocate B. Arun appeared for the Respondent/Wife

Brief Facts 

Two appeals were filed against the judgment passed by the Family Court dismissing the petitions filed by both the parties. 

The facts of the case were that, to enable the Husband to pursue higher medical qualifications, the Wife stayed back at her parental home in Theni with the children, putting her own professional ambitions on hold while the Husband made regular monthly visits.

The Husband permanently joined the family at his in-laws' home during the COVID-19 lockdown in April 2020. However, disputes arose when the Husband, upon achieving career advancement, insisted on moving out of his in-laws' house, leading to physical altercations and a breakdown of the marriage.

The Wife filed a petition for restitution of conjugal rights, and concurrently, the Husband filed a petition seeking dissolution of marriage on the ground of cruelty. The Family Court dismissed both the pleas; hence, the present appeals were filed. 

Observations/Findings of the Court

The Court opined that traditionally the responsibility of raising the financial resources rested on the husband while the wife took care of the domestic front, but the position has changed over the years.

It was noted that this is taking a toll on many relationships, particularly in the IT sector and other professions.

The Court added that marriage is not proving to be a win-win proposition for career women. Since such women see marriage as an impediment to their career prospects, they choose to skip it altogether. The number of unmarried women is on the rise. The situation can probably be remedied if husbands would opt to be homemakers.

The Court observed, "Till a while ago, women would happily introduce themselves as house wives. These days, they put on an embarrassed look and say “just a house wife”, even though there is nothing to be embarrassed about it. House wives are not “little women”(to borrow the famous title of the book by Louisa May Alcott. She famously said “I would rather be a free spinster and paddle my own canoe”)."

It was also observed that the husband was comfortable with a particular arrangement till he qualified himself fully and to his satisfaction, and once he blossomed into a successful professional, the male ego asserted itself in all its “glory”.

"We could sense that while the husband was focussing on sharpening his skills, the wife’s abilities have become rather blunt. It would have been just if the husband who is professionally successful acknowledges the role played by the wife in taking care of the family by mothering two children. But when the husband abandons midway, the wife is literally left nowhere", the Court added.

The Court asked the husband to pay a sum of rupees two and a half crores, which was agreed to by the wife.

It was concluded that the marriage between the parties was beyond repair; hence, the Court waived off the cooling period of six months.

Accordingly, the marriage was dissolved by mutual consent, and the appeals were disposed of.

Cause Title: H v. W [CMA(MD) No. 1257 of 2024

Appearances:

For Husband: Senior Advocate M.Subash Babu and Advocate C. Susikumar

For Wife: Advocate B Arun

Click here to read/download the Judgment

Tags: