The Supreme Court of India ruled that a professionally qualified woman pursuing her career and securing stability for her child cannot amount to cruelty or desertion in marriage, criticising lower court observations as “regressive,” “ultra-conservative” and reflective of a “feudalistic” mindset.
The Supreme Court delivered a significant ruling affirming that a professionally qualified woman’s decision to continue her career and provide a stable life for her child cannot be construed as “cruelty” or “desertion” within a marriage. Setting aside the findings of the lower courts in a matrimonial dispute, the apex court described their observations as “regressive”, “ultra-conservative” and reflective of a “feudalistic” mindset.
A bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta held that both the family court and the Gujarat High Court had wrongly interpreted the woman’s efforts to sustain her career as a dentist as grounds for divorce. The court clarified that such reasoning was rooted in outdated social assumptions and had no place in modern constitutional jurisprudence.
The dispute involved a dentist and her husband, a lieutenant colonel in the Indian Army, who got married in 2009. Following the marriage, the woman initially accompanied her husband to his posting in Kargil. However, during pregnancy and later after their daughter developed seizure-related medical complications, she moved to Ahmedabad to ensure access to specialized medical care and a more secure environment for the child. During this period, she also established her dental practice in the city.
The family court had granted divorce to the husband on the ground that the wife had allegedly prioritized her profession over her matrimonial responsibilities. It observed that she had failed in her “bounden duty” to reside wherever her husband was posted. The Gujarat High Court later upheld the same reasoning.
Writing the judgment, Justice Mehta strongly criticised the approach adopted by the courts below, stating that it was based on “deeply-entrenched archaic societal assumptions” and could not be sustained in law.
The bench observed,
“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,”
ALSO READ: ‘Ineffective and Misused’: Supreme Court Flags Serious Gaps in India’s Anti-Dowry Laws
The Supreme Court further underlined that marriage does not extinguish a woman’s independent identity or reduce her existence to that of her spouse.
The court said,
“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 also stressed that maintaining a marital relationship is a shared responsibility and one partner cannot impose unilateral expectations on the other regarding personal or professional choices. According to the court, the wife’s actions could not be viewed as abandonment of the marriage when they were driven by practical realities, professional commitments and concern for the welfare of the child.
Although the Supreme Court set aside the findings of cruelty and desertion against the woman, it upheld the dissolution of the marriage on the ground of irretrievable breakdown of marriage, noting that the relationship had collapsed beyond repair. The court also refused the husband’s request to initiate perjury proceedings against the woman, particularly in light of the fact that he had remarried and the wife herself was no longer seeking reconciliation.
In a further relief to the woman, the apex court ordered that all adverse remarks made against her by the lower courts be removed from the record. Calling the earlier reasoning “deeply disquieting”, the Supreme Court remarked that what had been portrayed as defiance was actually an assertion of independence, while what had been labelled as desertion was in reality shaped by career obligations, childcare responsibilities and the practical demands of life.
Case: Ann Saurabh Dutt v. Lieutenant Colonel Saurabh Iqbal Bahadur Dutt
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES