The Supreme Court observed that no husband or wife can claim to be independent in a continuing marriage, stressing that matrimony means mutual dependence. The bench asked the estranged couple to reconcile for the sake of their young children.
New Delhi: On Aug 21, the Supreme Court made a strong observation on the meaning of marriage and the responsibilities of spouses. The court said it was “impossible” that in a continuing marriage, a husband or a wife could claim they want to be completely independent of their partner.
A bench of Justices B V Nagarathna and R Mahadevan stated that marriage requires mutual dependence and support.
Also Read:Husband Giving Time, Money To Mother Not Domestic Violence: Court to Wife
The court remarked,
“If anybody wanted to be independent, they ought not enter matrimony.”
The bench further explained,
“We are very clear. No husband or wife can say I want to be independent of the other spouse while our marriage is continuing. That is impossible. Marriage means what, coming together of two souls, persons. How can you be independent?”
The observations came during the hearing of a dispute involving an estranged couple with two minor children. The court said,
“If they (couple) come together, we will be happy because the children are very young. Let them not stare at a broken home. What is their fault that they should have a broken home.”
The judges asked the couple to try and resolve their issues, noting that every marriage has disagreements. The wife, who appeared before the court through video conferencing, expressed her concerns saying,
“We can’t clap with one hand.”
Responding to her statement, the bench said,
“We are telling both of you, not only you.”
The wife alleged that her husband, who was working in Singapore and currently in India, was not ready to reconcile and was only interested in seeking visitation rights and custody of the children. The bench questioned her decision of not returning to Singapore, asking,
“But why can’t you return to Singapore? What is the difficulty for you to return to Singapore with the children.”
The wife explained that there were problems because of her husband’s actions in Singapore which made it, in her words, “extremely difficult” for her to go back. She added that she needed a job for survival as a single mother and also claimed that she had not received any financial support or maintenance from her estranged husband.
The husband’s lawyer argued that both the man and wife had “best jobs” in Singapore but the wife had refused to return with the children. The bench reminded the husband of his responsibility, saying,
“You (wife) may get a job, you may not get a job but he has to maintain you and the children.”
At this stage, the wife told the court that she did not want to depend on anyone. But Justice Nagarathna firmly responded,
“You can’t say that. Once you are married, you are emotionally, otherwise dependent on the husband. Financially you may not be.”
Justice Nagarathna went on to add,
“You can’t say I don’t want to depend on anybody. Then why did you get married. I don’t know, I may be old fashioned but no wife can say I don’t want to be dependent on my husband.”
The wife then asked the court for some time to think about the matter. The bench advised both parties that,
“You are all educated. You must sort out these things.”
During the hearing, the petitioner’s counsel informed the court that the husband was in India only till September 1 as he had to return to Singapore. He also pointed out that his younger son’s birthday was on August 23 and that he wished to celebrate it with both his children.
ALSO READ: SC to Review Unilateral Divorce Rights for Muslim Women via Khula
The bench accordingly directed the wife to hand over the children to the husband for the birthday celebration. At the same time, it ordered the husband to make sure that the children were with their mother at her house in the evening for the birthday celebrations as well.
The court also gave directions regarding interim custody, stating that the husband would have custody of the children on the upcoming weekends in August. It also recorded the husband’s statement that in order to try reconciliation with his wife, he was willing to keep his divorce proceedings on hold.
To ensure financial support, the Supreme Court ordered the husband to deposit Rs 5 lakh towards the maintenance of the wife and children without affecting any other legal claims or orders. The matter has been posted for further hearing on September 16.
Click Here to Read Our Reports on Divorce
