The Supreme Court of India has delivered a landmark ruling, stating that a woman's refusal to relocate for her husband does not amount to cruelty or desertion warranting divorce.
The court set aside adverse findings against a woman dentist who chose not to relocate to Kargil with her army officer husband, instead staying with her parents in Ahmedabad to provide better medical care to their daughter and pursue her dental career.
The bench of justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta observed that marriage does not extinguish a woman's autonomy or individuality and that she cannot be expected to sacrifice her career and conform to traditional notions of an obedient wife.
The court criticized the reasoning adopted by the family court and high court, describing it as 'archaic', 'ultraconservative', and 'feudalistic'. The ruling came in an appeal filed by the woman challenging a 2024 Gujarat High Court judgment that upheld dissolution of her marriage.
The top court was particularly critical of the approach adopted by the family court and affirmed by the high court, stating that it was 'not only legally unsustainable but also deeply disquieting'. The court also noted that the woman's decision to prioritize a safer and more stable environment for her child was a reasonable choice.
The judgment has been hailed as a significant victory for women's rights in India, upholding their autonomy and individuality in the face of patriarchal societal assumptions.
