Husband wanted wife to stay home with his parents; her decision to pursue career despite his disapproval is not cruelty, rules Supreme Court

In a significant judgement, the Supreme Court of India recently stated that a wife's career choice can't be deemed 'cruelty' just because it has hurt the sentiments of her husband and in-laws. This ruling came against the backdrop of a divorce case where the wife wished to establish her own dental clinic in Ahmedabad, while her husband wanted her to accompany him and reside with him in the city where he was employed.

The Supreme Court in its judgement (case no. 2026 INSC 475) observed that the woman's husband and in-laws opposed her decision to use her professional qualifications for the clinic business simply because it did not align with their expectation that she should abandon her ambitions and relocate with her husband to his remote place of posting. The Supreme Court said that this disapproval reflects a deeply regressive mindset incompatible with modern constitutional values.

The Supreme Court said that characterising a wife's pursuit of her own career goals as acts of cruelty merely because that may have hurt the sentiments of the husband or the in-laws is highly objectionable and deplorable, especially in an era where society proudly talks of women's empowerment.


Ultimately, the Supreme Court dismissed the cruelty and desertion charges against her, which had been upheld by both the family court and the high court in this matrimonial divorce dispute case initiated by her husband.

The Supreme Court said that 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.

The Supreme Court said: "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."

Also read: Husband gave his share in joint property to another man via Will; Wife files case for partition of property for her share; SC rules in her favour for this reason

What led to the dispute?

As per the submission to the court, in 2009, she, a qualified dentist, married him, who was an army officer. She established her dental practice in Pune when her husband was posted there. After a few years, her husband was transferred to Kargil. She then left everything behind and went to Kargil with him. Following the birth of their daughter, she relocated to Ahmedabad, citing better medical care for her child. At this time, she restarted her dental career over there.

Now this act of hers, establishing a dental clinic by not informing the in-laws or husband, was treated as cruelty by the family court, and it was held against her, reported LiveLaw. Moreover, since he was still posted in Kargil and she started her dental practice in Ahmedabad, this was ruled a dissertation by the court.

Also read: Wife’s MBA degree or past employment with MNCs can’t stop her from demanding maintenance, rules HC

Supreme Court's order

The Supreme Court said that the approach taken by the family court would convey the meaning 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 was tantamount to committing cruelty by deserting her husband. The Supreme Court said: "This approach can never be countenanced."

The Supreme Court said that 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 and ultra-conservative and cannot be countenanced in the present-day scenario when women are leading various professional fields from the forefront.

The Supreme Court also said that 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 a husband, and her independent intellectual and professional identity and aspirations must receive due credence and respect.

The Supreme Court said that merely because the husband was posted in a remote location, the expectation that the wife could not even think of pursuing her career in dentistry is indicative of a regressive and feudalistic mindset.

Divorce decree is still valid

The Supreme Court did not disturb the divorce decree but expunged the records, which recorded her acts of cruelty and desertion. The reason why the divorce decree was not disturbed is because she no longer wanted to stay married, and the husband had also moved on in life and had since remarried. The Supreme Court said that this divorce would be on the ground of irretrievable breakdown of marriage.

The Supreme Court also dismissed his arguments and plea seeking her prosecution for alleged perjury, as the court observed that this plea might be his personal vendetta.