'Highly Objectionable': Supreme Court slams courts that branded dentist wife's career ambition as matrimonial cruelty

NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court, in a significant ruling, has held that a wife's decision to pursue her professional career cannot be branded as "cruelty" or "desertion" just because it hurt the sentiments of her husband or in-laws. The judgment came while the apex court set aside findings of lower courts in a matrimonial dispute involving a woman dentist and her Army officer husband, as per a LiveLaw report.The bench comprising of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta strongly criticised the approach adopted by the Family Court and later affirmed by the Gujarat high court, which had treated the wife's career ambitions as acts of matrimonial cruelty and desertion. The Supreme Court observed that in an era where society speaks of women empowerment, it is "highly objectionable and deplorable" to view a woman's professional aspirations as a threat to marriage.What was the case about?The dispute involved a qualified dentist who married an Army officer in 2009. After initially practising dentistry in Pune, she relocated to Kargil following her husband's posting there. However, during her 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 treated her decision to establish a dental clinic in Ahmedabad — allegedly without informing her husband or in-laws — as an act of cruelty. The court also concluded that by not joining her husband at his place of posting, she had deserted him. The husband had approached the courts seeking divorce on grounds of cruelty and desertion, and the Family Court's findings were later upheld by the Gujarat High Court.What was the Supreme Court's ruling?The Supreme Court overturned both rulings, holding that the courts below failed to appreciate the changing social realities and constitutional values surrounding women's dignity and independence. It termed the lower court 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, tantamount to committing cruelty by deserting her husband. This approach can never be countenanced," the bench said, as quoted by LiveLaw.The court underlined that a qualified woman striving to create a stable and secure future for herself and her child cannot be faulted for wanting professional growth. It further noted that marriage does not extinguish a woman's individuality, ambitions, or right to work, and that a woman can no longer be treated as a mere appendage to her husband's household."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 [sic] aspirations must receive due credence and respect," the court said, as quoted by LiveLaw.Importantly, while the Supreme Court expunged the findings of cruelty and desertion, it did not disturb the divorce decree itself. Instead, the court treated the divorce as one granted on the ground of irretrievable breakdown of marriage, noting that the wife no longer wished to resume the marriage and that the husband had reportedly remarried. 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 litigation.