The Supreme Court on Tuesday ruled that a woman’s refusal to sacrifice her professional career and relocate with her husband cannot amount to cruelty or desertion warranting divorce, delivering a strong rebuke to what it described as “archaic”, “ultraconservative” and “feudalistic” notions of marriage.
<figure class="art
Setting aside adverse findings recorded by the Gujarat family court and affirmed by the Gujarat High Court against a woman dentist, a bench of justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta underlined that marriage does not extinguish a woman’s autonomy or individuality.
“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,” the bench observed.
The court said the expectation that a wife must abandon her career and unquestioningly accompany her husband wherever he is posted reflects a “regressive and feudalistic mindset” that has no place in contemporary constitutional society.
“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, ultraconservative, and cannot be countenanced in the present-day scenario when women are leading various professional fields from the forefront,” the bench observed.
It added that a woman can no longer be treated as a mere appendage to the household of the husband, and that her independent intellectual and professional identity and aspirations must receive due credence and respect.
The ruling came in an appeal filed by a woman dentist challenging a 2024 Gujarat High Court judgment that upheld dissolution of her marriage with an army officer on grounds of cruelty and desertion after she chose not to relocate to Kargil during his posting there and instead chose to stay with her parents in Ahmedabad to provide for better medical care to their daughter and establish her dental clinic.
The top court was particularly critical of the reasoning adopted by the family court and high court. “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,” said the bench, adding that the approach adopted by the family court and affirmed by the high court was “not only legally unsustainable but also deeply disquieting.”
The court said the findings against the woman were rooted in “deeply entrenched archaic societal assumptions”, including the notion that a wife’s professional identity remains subject to an “implied spousal veto” and that her autonomy must yield to the occupational and geographical demands of her husband.
“Such assumptions, rooted in a conservative patriarchal understanding of marital roles, are wholly incompatible with the progressive evolution of society, where dignity, autonomy, and equal participation of women in all spheres are increasingly recognised as fundamental to social advancement,” the bench held.
The judgment also took note of the woman’s decision to prioritise a safer and more stable environment for the upbringing of her child, observing that periods of separate residence necessitated by professional obligations or welfare considerations cannot automatically be construed as matrimonial misconduct.
During the hearing, the army officer, who has since remarried, pressed separate allegations of perjury against the woman. Rejecting the plea, the bench observed that the husband’s allegations appeared to stem from “personal vendetta and spiteful approach” fuelled by “anger and pent-up frustration” arising out of prolonged matrimonial disputes.
The court further remarked that the husband appeared to have “an attitude of domineering and control”, which was likely the reason why the woman sought independence and pursued her professional aspirations.
Although the bench expunged all findings of cruelty and desertion recorded against the woman, it opted not to interfere with the decree of divorce itself, noting that the husband had remarried and the wife no longer wished to resume the matrimonial relationship. “The decree shall be deemed to have been passed on the ground of irretrievable breakdown of marriage,” the court directed.
