The Supreme Court has granted divorce to a man whose wife had deprived him of marital bliss, on account of her obsession for career.
Upholding a Delhi High Court verdict, a bench of Justices C.K. Thakker and D.K. Jain held the wife’s ambition to excel in her profession while ignoring her matrimonial obligations amounted to mental cruelty, one of the grounds for divorce under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1985.
The Bench opined the woman preferred her career to marriage after perusing letters she wrote to her husband.
Her decision to get two pregnancies terminated without the husband’s consent also went against the woman.
The court rejected her pleadings to overrule the high court judgment and while quoting some of the letters added: “She further said the husband should not bring (up) her marital status preventing her from pursuing her career in the name of marriages. She clarified she did not want to close her avenues in life at least at that stage. She expressly stated she did not believe in Indian social value system and she was very happy in the foreign country.”
The SC verdict brought an end to a more than two-decade-old love marriage of the couple who knew each other since childhood.
At the time of marriage, the woman worked with the department of biochemistry in AIIMS and was also pursuing her PhD.
Before the husband approached a Delhi trial court for divorce in 1996, the wife had already expressed her desire to pursue her career. She reportedly got two abortions done and later while on a fellowship to America and chose to live separately.
In his plea for divorce, the husband placed several letters written by the wife in which she had admitted to be “very much interested in her career” and “that she was independent since 1979 and was keen to live an independent life.”
On the basis of the wife’s letters, one of which also talked of separation, the court granted divorce to the man.
The wife’s attempt to prove the allegations wrong failed as the high court upheld the lower court’s order. Her last effort too proved futile after the Supreme Court’s judgment.