The traditional roles of husbands and wives within a marriage are changing, and there is no reason why men cannot take up the role of homemakers, the Madras High Court has observed, making a series of striking remarks on gender roles, the value of domestic work and the sacrifices spouses make for each other’s careers.
While dissolving the marriage of an estranged doctor couple, a Division Bench of Justices GR Swaminathan and MD Sumathi said if women could be homemakers, men could be homemakers too. “If there can be housewives, there can be house husbands also. Let this become a new normal,” the court said, adding that the expression “home maker” is gender neutral.
The bench said such a shift could help preserve marriages and families at a time
when women are increasingly pursuing careers and, in some cases, choosing to remain unmarried because they see marriage as an obstacle to their professional ambitions.
The court observed that traditionally, the husband was expected to provide the financial resources while the wife managed the domestic front. But both roles, it said, deserve equal respect.
The bench noted that this arrangement has been changing over the last five decades, with women increasingly becoming career-oriented. It said this was “taking a toll in many relationships”, particularly in the IT sector and other professions.
The court observed that marriage was not proving to be a “win-win proposition” for some career-oriented women, who may see it as an impediment to their professional prospects. “The situation can probably be remedied if husbands would opt to be home makers,” the bench said.
‘Nothing To Be Embarrassed About’
The court also took aim at the social discomfort sometimes associated with women describing themselves as housewives.
“Till a while ago, women would happily introduce themselves as housewives. These days, they put on an embarrassed look and say ‘just a housewife’, even though there is nothing to be embarrassed about,” the court observed.
The bench stressed that homemaking should not be viewed as an inferior role, pointing to the Supreme Court’s recognition of the economic value of work performed by homemakers. It also invoked Louisa May Alcott’s Little Women while making the point that being a homemaker does not make a woman any less worthy or independent.
When One Spouse’s Career Moves Ahead
The observations came while the court was hearing cross-appeals filed by a doctor couple whose marriage had deteriorated after years of living apart.
The couple had married in 2011 and had two children. According to the judgment, the wife stayed with her parents while the husband pursued higher medical qualifications, including DM Cardiology and later an FNB qualification in Interventional Cardiology. The arrangement continued for years, with the husband visiting the family periodically.
The court noted that the arrangement became difficult after the husband’s professional prospects improved and he wanted to move out of his in-laws’ home.
In one of its more pointed observations, the bench said: “Once he blossomed into a successful professional, the male ego asserted itself in all its ‘glory’.”
The court contrasted the professional journeys of the two spouses, observing that while the husband was able to concentrate on sharpening his professional skills, the wife’s own abilities had suffered because she was occupied with the family and their children.
“We could sense that while the husband was focussing on sharpening his skills, the wife’s abilities have become rather blunt,” the court said.
The bench added that it would have been just for the professionally successful husband to acknowledge the role his wife played in raising their two children. “But when the husband abandons midway, the wife is literally left nowhere,” it observed.
‘Both Parties Unhappy’
The high court also had a pointed observation about the family court proceedings that had preceded the appeals. The family court had dismissed both the wife’s plea seeking restitution of conjugal rights and the husband’s divorce petition.
Commenting on the outcome, the high court said: “Marriages may make both the parties unhappy. But the outcome of an adversarial litigation must make at least one party happy. But this judge succeeded in making both unhappy.”
The high court, after interacting with the couple, concluded that the marriage had broken down beyond repair.
The husband agreed to pay Rs 2.5 crore as part of the settlement, which the wife accepted. The high court dissolved the marriage by mutual consent after taking into account that the couple had been living separately for more than five years.
The husband was directed to deposit Rs 1.5 crore in the wife’s bank account within three months and Rs 50 lakh each in the names of their two minor children within the following year. The court also directed that the divorce decree would come into effect only after the financial obligations were fulfilled.
