The Supreme Court recently held that a woman choosing to live away from her husband in order to pursue her career cannot be accused of cruelty or desertion so as to grant divorce.

A Bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta said that a professionally qualified woman could not be expected to sacrifice her independent identity and ambitions merely because she was married.

“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 Bench observed.

The Court further said that forcing women to conform to traditional expectations of marriage could not be accepted in modern 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, ultra-conservative, and cannot be countenanced,” it noted

It emphasised that women could no longer be expected to subordinate their identities and ambitions to the household of the husband.

“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 judgment said.

The Court made these remarks in a matrimonial dispute between a dentist and an Army officer who got married in 2009.

After initially setting up a dental clinic in Pune, the woman later moved to Kargil to stay with her husband following his posting there. During this period, she became pregnant but later returned to Ahmedabad citing limited medical facilities and concerns relating to her pregnancy.

The couple’s daughter was born in 2012 and later developed medical complications, including seizure episodes, while the family was staying in Kargil. The parties subsequently returned to Ahmedabad so that the child could receive specialised medical treatment.

The marriage eventually broke down, leading to multiple proceedings before courts and tribunals. The husband filed a divorce case alleging cruelty and desertion.

A family court granted divorce in 2022 after holding that the wife had prioritised her career over the marriage by opening a dental clinic in Ahmedabad and by refusing to stay with the husband at his place of posting. It also viewed it as cruelty that she had inaugurated the clinic without informing the husband or his family and had chosen to stay at her parental home during visits to Ahmedabad.

The woman challenged the findings of cruelty and desertion before the Gujarat High Court. However, the High Court upheld the family court ruling in August 2024.

She thereafter approached the Supreme Court seeking expungement of the findings on cruelty and desertion, while not opposing the divorce itself.

The Supreme Court said that the findings recorded by the family court and affirmed by the High Court reflected a regressive and feudalistic approach.

“In the present world, where women are making strides in leaps and bounds, 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 regressive and feudalistic mindset,” the Court observed.” it noted.

The Bench said that the woman’s decision to pursue her dental career and live separately for certain periods in order to care for her child could not be treated as cruelty or desertion.

“What is portrayed as defiance in the impugned judgments is, in truth, 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,” the Court observed.

It observed that expecting the woman to abandon her dental practice merely because her husband was posted in Kargil reflected a deeply patriarchal approach.

“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,” it noted.

The Bench also criticised the family court for treating the opening of the dental clinic without informing the husband or in-laws as an act of cruelty.

“To characterise such conduct as cruelty or desertion is to effectively penalise the appellant for exercising choices that are integral to her dignity and personhood,” the judgment said.

The Court ultimately expunged all findings of cruelty and desertion recorded against the woman.

However, since both parties had moved on and the husband had reportedly remarried, it upheld the divorce decree and said that it would stand on the ground of irretrievable breakdown of marriage.

[Read Judgment]