Bow down before your wife's 'diktat', SC tells husbands
PTI, May 19, 2009, 06.48pm IST
NEW DELHI: If you want to buy matrimonial peace just do whatever your wife says! This is not some piece of advice from a marriage counsellor, rather it is from the country's apex court.
A vacation bench of justices Markandeya Katju and Deepak Verma observed, "Bibi joh boltee hai woh sunno (listen to whatever your wife says), as otherwise it could land you in trouble. Because if you do not listen to her, you will suffer the consequences."
"Hum sab bhogi hai (we are all sufferers)," the bench said in a lighter vein.
The bench further said that a husband has to accept the suggestion of a wife irrespective of the fact whether it is sensible or not.
"If your wife asks you to put your face that side, put it that side. If she says, put it this side, then put it this side. Otherwise you will face trouble. Hum sub bhogi hai," the bench remarked again.
The interesting suggestions from the apex court evolved on Tuesday during a matrimonial case involving an Air Force official Deepak Kumar who complained that his estranged wife Manisha had ruined him and his family by implicating them in false criminal cases including sodomy.
The couple got married 17 years ago but matrimonial disputes surfaced between the two soon after marriage.
A district court in Chandigarh dismissed Deepak's plea for divorce as Manisha opposed it, but a single judge of the Punjab and Haryana High Court granted decree of judicial separation.
On an appeal from Manisha, a division bench granted the decree of divorce as the marriage "had irretrievably broken down" besides directing Rs 10 lakh maintenance amount from Deepak to her.
Aggrieved by the high court's order Manisha filed the appeal in the apex court challenging the decree of divorce.
Deepak's counsel argued that Manisha even though had implicated her husband and his family in a host of criminal cases was yet opposing the divorce despite the marriage breaking down irretrievably.
The vacation bench however, posted the matter for further hearing to July last week as there was no urgency in dealing with the matter. "You have waited for 17 years, so wait for a few more days," the bench said while switching over to the next item on the agenda.