The Supreme Court of India delivered a landmark judgment on Tuesday, asserting that a qualified woman's choice to pursue her profession and ensure a stable environment for her child cannot be deemed as 'cruelty' or 'desertion' within a marriage. The bench, comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta, overturned what it described as the 'regressive' and 'ultra-conservative' conclusions of lower courts in a matrimonial dispute.
Background of the Case
The case involved a dentist and her husband, a lieutenant colonel in the Indian Army, who were married in 2009. Initially, the wife moved with her husband to his posting in Kargil. However, during her pregnancy and after their daughter developed seizure-related medical complications, she relocated to Ahmedabad to access specialized treatment and a more stable environment. She also established a dental clinic there.
The family court had granted divorce to the husband, ruling that the wife prioritized her career over matrimonial duties and failed in her 'bounden duty' to reside wherever her husband was posted. The Gujarat High Court later upheld this decision.
Supreme Court's Observations
Writing the verdict, Justice Mehta criticized the lower courts' reasoning as rooted in 'deeply-entrenched archaic societal assumptions' and legally untenable. The bench remarked, '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 by the courts below.'
The Supreme Court emphasized that marriage does not erase a woman's individuality or subordinate her identity to that of her spouse. 'It must be 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,' the court stated.
Shared Responsibility in Marriage
The judges underscored that balancing marital ties is a shared responsibility, and one spouse cannot unilaterally dictate the life choices of the other. The court upheld the divorce solely on the grounds of irretrievable breakdown of marriage, not on allegations of cruelty or desertion against the wife.
Rejection of Perjury Plea
The court also rejected the husband's plea to prosecute the woman for perjury, noting that he had remarried and the woman was no longer interested in reconciliation. It ordered that the adverse observations made by the lower courts against her be expunged from the record.
Calling the lower courts' reasoning 'deeply disquieting,' the Supreme Court stated that what had been portrayed as defiance was actually an assertion of independence, and what was labelled desertion was shaped by professional commitments, the child's welfare, and practical realities of life.
