A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice M.S. Sonak and Justice Manoj Prasad set aside the judgment of the Family Court, Jamshedpur, which had considered the husband's willingness to allow his wife to pursue education and employment as evidence of his liberal and accommodating attitude.

The parties were married in 2004 and had a daughter in September 2007. The wife filed a petition seeking divorce under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, alleging physical and mental cruelty by her husband. She alleged that her husband and in-laws had subjected her to ill-treatment and dowry demands. She further claimed that her husband had persuaded her to resign from her job on the assurance that he had secured employment in Delhi.

According to the wife, after she accompanied him to Delhi, he resigned from his job and shifted to Raigarh, leaving her and their minor daughter to reside with her elder sister. She submitted that she was compelled to work as a private tutor to support herself. She also alleged that her husband subsequently demanded ₹5 lakh to enable him to move to a Middle Eastern country for employment and that she was subjected to physical and mental cruelty when the demand was not fulfilled.

The Family Court dismissed her divorce petition on March 16, 2019. It observed that the husband had permitted her to reside in a hostel, pursue higher education and take up employment, which demonstrated his accommodating and cooperative attitude. The Trial Court also described the wife as highly ambitious.

Challenging this decision, the wife argued that the Family Court had adopted an approach based on traditional notions that treated a woman's pursuit of education as a privilege granted by her husband rather than an independent right. Examining the judgment, the High Court expressed disagreement with the Family Court's reasoning and held that such gender stereotyping could not be permitted in matrimonial disputes.

The Bench observed that husbands and wives are equal partners in marriage and that their relationship is not one of superiority, inferiority or domination. On the right of a wife to pursue education and employment, the Court observed:

“Pursuing higher education after marriage is not a privilege granted by the respondent, but a right which the wife is always entitled to exercise. Similarly, if the wife wishes to take up a government or even a private job, based on merit and eligibility, allowing her to do so is not some favour the husband does to his wife. A wife who is intent on further studies or on taking up a job after marriage cannot be considered ambitious or over-ambitious. A husband studying further or taking up a job after marriage is regarded as normal, perhaps as it should be. But the reverse cannot be stigmatised as abnormal or suggestive of ambition or overambition. Accordingly, the appellant's plea should not have been rejected on the basis of such gender stereotyping.”

The Court further held that the marital relationship must be founded upon equality and mutual respect rather than one spouse exercising authority over the other. It observed:

“With respect, we cannot subscribe to such observations or approach. Such gender stereotyping cannot be permitted in such matters. The husband and wife are equal partners in marriage. The law is settled that the relationship between a husband and wife is not one of a superior and an inferior, nor of one person dominating another. This relationship rests on the premise that the husband and wife exercise equal rights and move in tandem. Even if moving in tandem may not always be possible, mutual respect is to be striven for. Therefore, based on this reasoning, the suit should not have been dismissed.”

The Division Bench accordingly decided the appeal in favour of the wife, set aside the Family Court's judgment and decree, and allowed her petition for dissolution of marriage on the ground of cruelty under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act.

The Court consequently declared the marriage dissolved and directed that a decree of divorce be drawn up.

Appearance:

For the Appellant: Mr. Anurag Kashyap, Advocate

For the Respondent: Mr. Birendra Kumar, Advocate