In a significant verdict, the Supreme Court held on Tuesday that 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 top court said the "feudalistic" approach of a family court in holding a woman's pursuit of her professional career as a dentist as "cruelty" and "desertion" was "regressive" and "ultra-conservative". The family court's decision was upheld by the Gujarat High Court. A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta set aside the "regressive" findings of the courts below and said a wife's professional identity is not subject to an "implied spousal veto".
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. It also took note of the fact that the man has remarried and refused to allow the husband's plea that his wife be prosecuted for the offence of perjury.
It, however, expunged the observations made by the family court against the woman with very strong observations. "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," Justice Mehta, who authored the verdict, said. The bench criticised the observations of the family court, which were affirmed by the high court, and said those are "not only legally unsustainable but also deeply disquieting". "The endeavour of the appellant to establish her own dental clinic at Ahmedabad, rather than allowing the professional qualification she had earned through years of effort to lie dormant and go waste, has been viewed with disapproval, merely because her stance did not conform to the expectation of the husband and the in-laws that she must abandon her aspirations and reside with her husband at a remote location on account of his posting as an Army officer," the verdict said.
Referring to the reasoning of the courts below, the top court said it appeared to be founded upon "deeply-entrenched archaic societal assumptions that a wife's professional identity is subject to an implied spousal veto". "That her autonomy must yield to the geographical and occupational demands of her husband; and that her decision to secure a safer and more conducive environment for the upbringing of her child, even at the cost of living separately for certain periods, would construe as a matrimonial default," it said. The bench said such assumptions, rooted in a conservative patriarchal understanding of marital roles, are wholly incompatible with the progressive evolution of the society, where dignity, autonomy and equal participation of women in all spheres are increasingly recognised as fundamental to social advancement.
"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," it 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. "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," it 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.