Marriage not a contract, but a sacramental one: Madras High Court

A husband and wife must realise

'ego' and 'intolerance' are like footwear and should be left out of their house, when they enter. Else, their children will have to face a miserable life, the Madras High Court has warned young couples.

Justice S Vaidyanathan also reminded youngsters that marriage is not a contract, but a sacramental one.

The judge, however, regretted the word 'sacrament' has no meaning after the coming into effect of the Domestic Violence Act in 2005, which approved live-in-relationship.

Unfortunately, there was no provision like the Domestic Violence Act to proceed against the wife by the husband for lodging a false complaint, the judge noted.

The judge made the observations while allowing a petition from Dr P Sasikumar, challenging an order dated February 18, 2020 of the Director of Animal Husbandry and Veterinary Sciences, removing him from service and to reinstate him with all attendant benefits.

According to Sasikumar, he was removed from service on the ground that he was involved in a domestic issue on the basis of the complaint lodged by his erstwhile wife.

The ex-wife had initiated divorce proceedings against the petitioner under the Domestic Violence Act before the Judicial Magistrate-cum-Additional Mahila Court in Salem.

The petitioner had also filed a similar petition before the First Additional Sub Judge, Salem.

The divorce petition filed by the petitioner on the ground of alleged cruelty and voluntary desertion by the wife was accepted by the Family Court and it had become final.

At the time of awaiting verdict, the wife had lodged the complaint against the petitioner. Based on this, Sasikumar was removed from service. Hence, the present petition.

The judge said as the family issue had already been dissolved by means of an order dated February 19 last year by the Family Court, the question of taking penal action by the department against the petitioner does not arise, more so, when there is a finding of cruelty and voluntary desertion by the wife.

It appears that only to harass the petitioner, the present complaint has been lodged by the wife.

It appears that the wife had unnecessarily harassed the petitioner. Unfortunately, there was no provision like the Domestic Violence Act, to proceed against the wife by the husband.

The complaint was given just four days prior to grant of divorce by the Family Court, which itself clearly showed that the wife had anticipated divorce and hence, created unnecessary trouble to the petitioner, the judge said.

The judge set aside the removal order and directed the department to reinstate him within 15 days.