In an important judgment, the Supreme Court on Tuesday made it clear that the decision of a capable woman to pursue her career and ensure a stable and safe environment for her child cannot be seen as cruelty or abandonment. The top court remarked that terming a woman dentist’s attempt to pursue her professional career as cruelty and abandonment is a feudal approach of the Family Court, which is backward and overly conservative.
The matter came to light during the hearing of petitions filed by a estranged husband and wife. A Supreme Court bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta set aside the backward findings of lower courts and held that the professional identity of the wife is not subject to the inherent marital veto.
Also read: Sabarimala Verdict: Religious freedom paramount or social reform? Supreme Court’s comment in Sabarimala case
The bench also took note of the woman’s plea that she no longer had any hope of reconciliation. Therefore, the Court upheld the divorce decree granted by the lower courts on the grounds of breakdown of marriage and not on the grounds of cruelty or desertion by the woman.
Criticism of feudal thinking of family court
The Supreme Court strongly criticized the approach of the Family Court, which was also upheld by the Gujarat High Court. The bench said that even in the 21st century, the efforts of a qualified woman to pursue her professional career and ensure a safe and stable environment for her child have been held by the lower courts to be an act of cruelty and abandonment.
Emphasis on women’s autonomy and rights in the decision
Justice Mehta said that the observations of the Family Court are not only legally untenable but also disturbing. The judgment emphasized that the woman’s attempt to set up her own dental clinic in Ahmedabad, rather than leave her acquired professional qualification dormant, could not be unacceptable because it was not in keeping with the expectations of her husband and in-laws that she would have to live in a remote place due to her husband’s posting as an Army officer.
Also read: Supreme Court: Big decision of the Supreme Court Collegium, recommendation for appointment of 9 new judges in Calcutta High Court
The Supreme Court said that the thinking of the lower courts appears to be based on outdated social beliefs that a wife’s professional identity is subject to the veto inherent in the marriage. The court made it clear that the wife’s autonomy should not succumb to the geographical and professional demands of the husband. The court said that her decision to live separately for the better future of her child is not a violation of marital obligations.
other videos
