Wife's Pursuit Of Career Can't Be Branded Cruelty Just Because It Hurt Husband's Sentiments : Supreme Court

In a strongly worded judgment on gender equality within marriage, the Supreme Court on Tuesday held that branding a wife's pursuit of her professional ambitions as matrimonial cruelty merely because it may have hurt the sentiments of her husband or in-laws reflects a deeply regressive mindset incompatible with modern constitutional values.

“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,” observed a bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta.

The Court made the observation while setting aside findings of cruelty and desertion recorded against a woman dentist by the Family Court and affirmed by the Gujarat High Court in matrimonial proceedings initiated by her husband, an Army officer.

The bench said the approach of the lower courts was based on “deeply entrenched archaic societal assumptions” that a wife's professional identity is subject to her husband's approval and that she must sacrifice her aspirations to comply with his occupational demands.

“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. We are constrained to observe that the approach adopted by the learned Family Court, as affirmed by the High Court, is not only legally unsustainable but also deeply disquieting.” the Court said.

Background

The appellant-wife, a qualified dentist, had married the respondent-wife in 2009. After initially establishing her dental practice in Pune, she relocated to Kargil following her husband's posting. However, during pregnancy and later after their daughter developed seizure episodes requiring medical attention, she returned to Ahmedabad, citing the need for better healthcare and a safer environment for the child. She also resumed her dental career there.

The Family Court had treated her decision to establish a dental clinic in Ahmedabad, allegedly without informing her husband or in-laws, as an act of cruelty. It also held against her for staying at her parental home during visits to Ahmedabad and concluded that by not joining her husband at his place of posting, she had deserted him.

Appalling findings

The Supreme Court termed these findings “appalling” and “totally unacceptable.”

“The approach of the Family Court was clearly meant to convey that the wife even though having a degree in Dentistry, should have sacrificed her own career to go and stay with her husband at his place of posting and failure to do so, tantamounted to committing cruelty by deserting her husband. This approach can never be countenanced,” the bench said.

"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 in the present day scenario when women are leading various professional fields from the forefront."

Marriage doesn't eclipse a woman's identity

The Court said a woman cannot be treated as a mere appendage to her husband's household and marriage does not extinguish her individuality or autonomy.

The Court 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 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. 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 and aspirations must receive due credence and respect."

It further noted that if the roles were reversed, a husband would likely not be expected to abandon his profession merely because his wife had a transferable job.

“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 bench said.

Though the Court expunged the findings of cruelty and desertion, it did not disturb the divorce decree, noting that the wife no longer wished to resume the marriage and that the husband had reportedly remarried. The divorce would instead be treated as one granted on the ground of irretrievable breakdown of marriage.

The Court also dismissed the husband's plea seeking prosecution of the wife for alleged perjury, holding that the allegations appeared to be motivated by “personal vendetta” arising from prolonged matrimonial disputes.

Case: Ann Saurabh Dutt v. Lieutenant Colonel Saurabh Iqbal Bahadur Dutt

Citataion : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 489

Click here to read the judgment