Woman's Career Ambition Not Cruelty Or Desertion: Top Court In Divorce Case

A qualified woman's decision to pursue her career, and ensure a stable and safe environment for her child cannot be branded as "cruelty" or "desertion", the Supreme Court said in a significant ruling on Tuesday.

The top court said the "feudalistic" approach of a Gujarat family court in holding a woman's pursuit of her professional career as a dentist as "cruelty" and "desertion" was "regressive" and "ultra-conservative".

Shockingly, the family court's decision was upheld by the Gujarat High Court.

"To brandish the effort of the wife to pursue her own career goals as acts of cruelty, as the same 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," observed a bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta.

"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," the bench said.

Deciding the cross-pleas filed by the estranged wife and the husband, the bench took note of the submissions of the woman that she was no longer hopeful of a patch-up and upheld the decree of divorce granted by the courts below on the ground of an irretrievable breakdown of the marriage and not on the basis of cruelty and desertion by her.

The bench said the approach of the lower courts was based on "deeply entrenched archaic societal assumptions" that a wife's professional identity is subject to her husband's approval and that she must sacrifice her aspirations to comply with his occupational demands.

It expunged the observations made by the family court against the woman with very strong observations.

"We are constrained to observe that the approach adopted by the learned Family Court, as affirmed by the High Court, is not only legally unsustainable but also deeply disquieting," the court said.

The court emphasised that a well-educated and professionally qualified woman cannot be expected to be confined within the rigid boundaries of matrimonial obligations alone.

"Marriage does not eclipse her individuality, nor does it subjugate her identity under that of her spouse. 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. As has been recognised in the evolving discourse on matrimonial jurisprudence, a woman can no longer be treated as a mere appendage to the household of the husband, and her independent intellectual and professional identity and aspirations must receive due credence and respect," the court said.

The court further 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.

"Merely because the husband was an Army Officer posted in a remote location, the expectation that the wife could not even think of pursuing her career in Dentistry, is indicative of a regressive and feudalistic mindset," the bench said.

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 verdict said.

Referring to the facts of the case, the bench said what has been portrayed as defiance is, in fact, an assertion of independence.

"What is labelled as desertion is, on a closer scrutiny, a consequence of circumstances shaped by professional commitments, the welfare of the minor child and the realities of life," it said.

The matter arose from a matrimonial dispute between a qualified dentist and her husband, a lieutenant colonel in the Indian Army.

Following their marriage in 2009, the wife initially sacrificed her private practice in Pune to join her husband at his place of posting in Kargil.

However, due to pregnancy and the subsequent medical complications of their daughter, who suffered from seizure episodes, the wife moved to Ahmedabad to access specialised medical facilities and provide a stable upbringing to the girl.

She established a dental clinic there.

The family court, later supported by the high court, had granted the husband a divorce on the grounds of "cruelty" and "desertion", reasoning that a wife has a "bounden duty" to reside wherever her husband is posted and that she had "prioritised her career" over her matrimonial obligations.