NEW DELHI: In a landmark ruling with wide implications for matrimonial law in India, the Supreme Court on Tuesday (May 12) delivered a strongly worded judgment holding that a married woman’s decision to pursue her professional career cannot be treated as an act of cruelty or desertion against her husband, simply because it may have hurt his feelings or those of his in-laws.
A bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta made the observation while setting aside findings of cruelty and desertion recorded against a woman dentist by the Family Court, findings that were subsequently affirmed by the Gujarat High Court in matrimonial proceedings initiated by her husband, an Army officer.
The appellant-wife, a qualified dentist, had married the respondent in 2009. After initially establishing her dental practice in Pune, she relocated to Kargil following her husband’s posting.
However, during her pregnancy and later after their daughter developed seizure episodes requiring medical attention, she returned to Ahmedabad, citing the need for better healthcare and a safer environment for the child. She also resumed her dental career there.
The Family Court had treated her decision to establish a dental clinic in Ahmedabad, allegedly without informing her husband or in-laws, as an act of cruelty.
It also held against her for staying at her parental home during visits to Ahmedabad and concluded that by not joining her husband at his place of posting, she had deserted him.
The Supreme Court pulled no punches in its assessment of the reasoning adopted by the lower courts. The bench termed these findings “appalling” and “totally unacceptable,” saying the approach of the Family Court was “clearly meant to convey that the wife, even though having a degree in Dentistry, should have sacrificed her own career to go and stay with her husband at his place of posting, and failure to do so amounted to committing cruelty by deserting her husband.”
Terming it “feudalistic,” “regressive,” and “ultra-conservative,” the top court frowned upon the family court’s decision, which the Gujarat High Court had upheld, that a woman’s pursuit of her professional career as a dentist amounted to “cruelty” and “desertion.”
The bench stressed that such a line of thinking has no place in contemporary India. The Court observed: “We are well into the 21st Century, and yet an attempt by a qualified woman to pursue her professional career and to secure a safe and stable environment for the upbringing of her child has been treated as an act of cruelty and desertion. The approach adopted by the learned Family Court, as affirmed by the High Court, is not only legally unsustainable but also deeply disquieting.”
The bench laid down a clear position on the professional rights of married women. The Court held that a well-educated and professionally qualified woman cannot be expected to be confined within the rigid boundaries of matrimonial obligations alone, and that marriage does not eclipse her individuality, nor does it subjugate her identity under that of her spouse.
The Court further stated that it is for both the husband and the wife to balance their marital ties in a manner that respects mutual aspirations, and not for one to unilaterally dictate the life choices of the other.
The bench also pointed out the inherent gender bias in the lower courts’ reasoning. It noted that if the roles were reversed, a husband would likely not be expected to abandon his profession merely because his wife had a transferable job.
The Court added that the expectation that the wife could not even think of pursuing her career in dentistry merely because her husband was an Army officer posted in a remote location “is indicative of a regressive and feudalistic mindset.”
The bench declared that to brandish a wife’s efforts to pursue her own career goals as acts of cruelty, merely because they may have hurt the sentiments of the husband or the in-laws, is “highly objectionable and deplorable in the era where the society proudly talks of women empowerment.”
The Court further held that the expectation that a woman must invariably sacrifice her career and conform to traditional notions of an obedient wife meant for cohabitation, irrespective of her own aspirations or the welfare of the child, reflects a line of reasoning that is archaic, ultra-conservative, and cannot be countenanced in the present day scenario when women are leading various professional fields from the forefront.
While the Supreme Court expunged all findings of cruelty and desertion against the wife, it did not disturb the divorce decree itself.
The Court noted that the wife no longer wished to resume the marriage and that the husband had reportedly remarried. The divorce would instead be treated as one granted on the ground of irretrievable breakdown of marriage.
The Court also dismissed the husband’s plea seeking prosecution of the wife for alleged perjury, holding that the allegations appeared to be motivated by “personal vendetta” arising from prolonged matrimonial disputes. - The Statesman/ANN
