The Supreme Court of India, in a landmark ruling, held on Wednesday that a woman’s pursuit of her professional ambitions cannot be deemed ‘cruelty’ or ‘desertion’ in a marriage. The Apex court’s bench, comprising Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta, rebuked the lower courts and described the earlier reasoning as ‘regressive’ and rooted in a ‘feudalistic mindset’ that has no place in contemporary society.

Bench calls lower courts’ view ‘Archaic’

The case stems from a matrimonial dispute between a qualified dentist and her husband, a Lieutenant Colonel in the Indian Army. While a family court in Gujarat, and later the Gujarat High Court (HC), granted divorce on grounds of cruelty and desertion, the SC found such conclusions deeply flawed.

The SC bench remarked that labelling a woman’s career pursuit as cruelty, merely because it may hurt the sentiments of her husband or in-laws is ‘highly objectionable and deplorable,’ particularly in an era that champions women’s empowerment.

‘Marriage does not eclipse individuality’: SC

The top court, in strongly worded remarks, observed that marriage does not subsume a woman’s identity or professional aspirations. It said, “A woman can no longer be treated as a mere appendage to the household of the husband,” asserting that both partners must balance marital responsibilities while respecting each other’s ambitions. The judges also underscored the double standards often at play, noting that a husband would rarely be expected to abandon his profession to accommodate his spouse’s career.

Court upholds divorce, but revises grounds

While the court upheld the marriage’s dissolution, it clarified that the decree would stand on the ground of ‘irretrievable breakdown of marriage,’ rather than allegations of desertion or cruelty by the wife.

Notably, the couple tied the knot in 2009, after which the woman gave up her dental practice in Pune to accompany her husband to his posting in Kargil. However, owing to pregnancy and medical complications faced by their daughter, she relocated to Ahmedabad to ensure access to specialised healthcare and a stable environment.

Thereafter, she resumed her professional life by establishing a dental clinic. However, this act of hers was construed by the lower courts as prioritising career over marital obligations.