India

Supreme Court Ruling on Women's Career Choices and Marital Cruelty

Thursday, May 14, 2026
5 min read
Supreme Court Ruling on Women's Career Choices and Marital Cruelty

The Supreme Court basically slammed the rulings from the Gujarat family court and the High Court. They took strong objection to how those courts framed a woman’s choice to pursue her career and build a stable life for her child as grounds for "cruelty" and "desertion" in the marriage.

It was a 20-page judgment from May 12th, and Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta didn't hold back. They called the entire approach "archaic." "Ultra-conservative." "Regressive." They argued it was rooted in some deeply entrenched, old-fashioned societal assumptions.

The core issue, as the court saw it, was this: the woman, a qualified dentist, had been wrongly accused of cruelty and desertion simply because she decided to set up her own dental clinic in Ahmedabad. She didn't abandon her goals. She just chose a different path.

They pointed out, "We are well into the 21st Century." Marriage doesn't erase a woman's individuality. That’s the underlying thrust of the argument.

The background is complicated. They married back in 2009. She was a dentist. He was an Army officer, posted somewhere remote, Pune, then later Kargil.

The appellant started running a private clinic in Pune in June 2010. A year later, the husband was posted to Kargil. She shut down her practice to move with him. They stayed together for four months. She gave birth to a girl. But Kargil facilities were terrible. She had to head back to Ahmedabad for medical care.

Things got messy after that. Disputes flared up over money. Her desire for better financial care for the child. Plus, the religious differences—Christian versus Hindu—that just added strain.

She tried to get support. She approached the Army authorities for maintenance. In 2014, they directed him to pay 22% of his salary to his wife and 5.5% to the daughter.

Then came the family court in Ahmedabad. In February 2022, they allowed interim maintenance. Fifty-five thousand rupees a month. Thirty-five for the appellant, twenty for the daughter.

The husband filed for divorce in 2017. He also tried to prosecute her for perjury under the CrPC.

But the family court ruled differently. They focused on the woman’s choices. They said it was the wife's "bounden duty" to live where the husband was. Running her clinic was seen as desertion. That’s what the Gujarat High Court upheld.

The Supreme Court disaGreed entirely with that framing. They rejected the lower court’s observations. The idea that a wife’s professional identity should be subject to some implied spousal veto? That was just incompatible with how society is evolving.

The bench was clear. "To brandish the effort of the wife to pursue her own career goals as acts of cruelty… is highly objectionable and deplorable in this era where we talk about women empowerment."

They didn't touch the divorce itself. But they did dismiss the husband’s plea about perjury. They felt his allegations stemmed from personal vendetta, anger, just pent-up frustration. All those cruelty claims? They were expressly set aside.

Written by Gree News Team — Senior Editorial Board

Gree News Team covers international news and global affairs at Gree News. Our collective of senior editors is dedicated to providing independent, accurate, and responsible journalism for a global audience.

#sensational#india#global#trending

More from India

View All

Latest Headlines