The Madras High Court has recently delivered a significant judgment, clarifying that a wife's decision to prioritize her academic or career aspirations cannot automatically be considered cruelty under matrimonial law. This ruling came in the matter of ABC v. XYZ (CMA No. 756 of 2021), where a division bench of Justices J. Nisha Banu and R. Sakthivel addressed a husband's appeal against a family court's decision to dismiss his divorce petition. The husband had sought divorce under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, citing cruelty as the primary ground. He argued that his wife’s decision to pursue higher studies in the United States without his consent, along with her alleged indifferent behavior and verbal abuse, constituted mental cruelty.
The couple had married in 2014, and after a brief period of cohabitation, the husband moved to Canada for employment. The wife later moved to the USA for higher studies in 2016. The husband alleged that his wife did not inform him about her plans and had refused to relocate to Canada, where he was working. He also accused her of being verbally abusive and showing a lack of interest in the marital relationship.
The wife contested these allegations, asserting that she had informed her husband and his family about her plans to study abroad and that her decision was a career move, not an act of abandonment. She also expressed her willingness to reconcile, provided she was assured of a respectful and safe marital environment.
The Family Court had dismissed the husband's petition in 2020, stating that the evidence did not support his claims of cruelty and that minor marital quarrels are common and do not amount to cruelty under the law. The High Court concurred with the Family Court's findings, emphasizing that both spouses were equally qualified and had the right to pursue their respective careers. The court observed that minor disagreements are part of marital life and do not constitute cruelty. The High Court noted that the husband was unwilling to compromise on his career and wanted his wife to live with him, while the wife wanted to focus on her academic and career goals. The court stated that it could not find fault with the wife's decision to prioritize her academics or career, as both parties were equally qualified and educated and pursuing their career aspirations.
However, the Madras High Court acknowledged that the couple had been living apart for nearly nine years and that all attempts at reconciliation had failed. The court emphasized that while individual career choices and disagreements alone may not amount to legal cruelty, the prolonged separation and the failure of all mediation efforts indicated that the marriage had irretrievably broken down. Considering that there was no possibility of reunion between the couple, the High Court ultimately allowed the husband’s appeal and dissolved the marriage on the grounds of irretrievable breakdown.
This judgment underscores the evolving understanding of marital relationships in contemporary society, where both partners often have significant career and academic goals. The court's ruling supports individual autonomy within a marriage, recognizing that prioritizing one's career or education does not automatically equate to cruelty towards one's spouse. However, the court also took into account the prolonged separation and the lack of any possibility of reconciliation, leading to the dissolution of the marriage based on its irretrievable breakdown.
