Supreme Court slams ‘cruelty’ finding against Army wife who chose career, kid’s health over husband’s Kargil posting

“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 by the courts below,” the Supreme Court said.

Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta quashed findings of cruelty against the dentist woman for choosing her career over her husband’s Army posting.

“The husband should have taken pride in the fact that his wife was in pursuit of her career goals rather than holding her responsible for the breakdown of the marriage on the grounds that she did not join him at Kargil by sacrificing her career,” the bench added.

Marriage, differences, separation

• The appellant and the respondent got married in 2009. The appellant was a qualified dentist, and the respondent was serving in the Indian Army, posted in Pune, the Supreme Court noted.
• The appellant started her own private clinic in Pune, but after a year, when the respondent was posted at Kargil, she had to give up on her career and move there with her husband in 2010.
• In 2012, the couple conceived and had a baby, and the wife moved back to Ahmedabad to live with her in-laws, due to limited facilities in Kargil.
• Owing to the difference in religious background from which parties hail, the wife, being a Christian and the husband, a Hindu, grew apart, and the appellant moved to her parental home.
• After giving birth, the appellant and the child moved to Kargil, but the child developed certain medical complications, seizure episodes, and was required to be admitted under military hospital supervision, with limited facilities.
• Following the events, the appellant approached the competent Army authorities, seeking maintenance for herself and for her daughter, for which she was granted 22 per cent of her husband’s salary for herself and five-and-a-half per cent for the child.
• The Army man challenged the order before the Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT), Lucknow, and a series of proceedings were initiated between the parties, including before the Ahmedabad family court. 
• The maintenance grant was later scaled down by the Gujarat High Court, which was also affirmed by the family court. Simultaneously, the respondent had filed an application alleging that the appellant woman had made false statements on oath.
• In 2022, the family court granted a divorce on the grounds of cruelty and desertion attributed to the appellant, and simultaneously, by the same judgment, rejected the aforesaid application of the respondent.
• Both parties filed an appeal against the order passed by the family court in the Gujarat High Court, and both appeals were dismissed by the division bench of the court in 2024.

Family court’s decision ‘disquieting’

• The Supreme Court observed that the approach adopted by the Ahmedabad family court, as affirmed by the high court, was not only legally unsustainable but also deeply disquieting. 
• The apex court came down hard on the husband and the in-laws of the woman, stating that instead of supporting the appellant in establishing her own dental clinic at Ahmedabad, they expected her to abandon her aspirations and move with her army husband’s remote location posting.
• It appears that the judgments had been passed based on outdated social norms, where a wife’s professional identity demands her husband’s approval, the Supreme Court said.
• The Army wife choosing a safer environment for raising her child, even if that comes at the cost of living separately for a while, does not warrant a matrimonial default.
• Such patriarchal assumptions are no longer appreciated in the changing values of society, the top court said.
• The Supreme Court observed that a woman’s dignity, autonomy, and participation in all fields are recognised as essential for social progress. 

‘Atrocious to claim cruelty, desertion’

Noting that though it would be expected of an Army wife to move with the husband wherever he goes, the Supreme Court said the wife’s decision to stay in Ahmedabad to provide a safer environment and better healthcare for her daughter while continuing her dental practice could not be termed cruelty or desertion, and holding otherwise would be “atrocious”.

“Having observed the approach of the respondent during the course of hearings and the thrust of his submissions seeking prosecution of the appellant, we are convinced that he has an attitude of domineering and control, which must have been the probable cause for the appellant taking the steps for gaining independence and pursuing her career goals,” the Supreme Court stated while terming the woman’s action justified.