‘If you want to be fully independent, don’t get married’: Supreme Court

Those who want to remain “fully independent” should not enter wedlock, the Supreme Court said on Thursday, noting that it was ‘impossible’ for either spouse in a continuing marriage to say they want to be independent of their partner.

"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’s impossible. Marriage means what... coming together of two souls, persons. How can you be independent?" a Bench led by Justice BV Nagarathna wondered during the hearing of a dispute of an estranged couple with two young children.

“If anyone wants to be fully independent, they should not enter matrimony,” the Bench -- which also included Justice R Mahadevan – said.

"You may get a job, you may not get a job…But he has to maintain you and the children," the Bench said. However, the wife said she did not want to be dependent on anyone.

"You can't say that... Once you are married, you are emotionally, otherwise dependent on the husband. Financially you may not be… 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’,” Justice Nagarathna said.

The Bench directed the husband to deposit Rs 5 lakh towards interim maintenance of the wife and children at this juncture and posted the matter for September 16.

As the Bench said, "You (both) are all educated. You must sort out these things," the wife sought some time to think over the issue.

The Bench directed the wife to hand over the children to the petitioner for celebrating the birthday of the younger son on August 23. It asked the man to ensure that the children were at the wife's place for the birthday celebration in the evening.

"If they (the couple) come together, we will be happy because the children are very young. Let them not stare at a broken home. What’s their fault that they should have a broken home," the Bench said, requesting the parties to sort out their differences.

As the Bench said every couple would have some dispute, the wife -- appearing through video-conferencing from Hyderabad -- said, "We can't clap with one hand."

"We are telling both of you, not only you," the Bench clarified.

The woman alleged that her man, settled in Singapore, was unwilling to resolve the dispute and wanted only visitation rights and custody of children.

"But why can't you return to Singapore? What is the difficulty for you to return to Singapore with the children," the Bench asked the woman who alleged that her husband's actions made it "extremely difficult" for her to return to Singapore.

The woman said she had not received any maintenance from her estranged husband and that she needed a job for livelihood.

The husband's counsel said both had the "best jobs" in Singapore but the wife refused to return to Singapore along with the children. He said the petitioner man -- currently in India -- was willing to keep divorce proceedings in abeyance for reconciliation with his wife.