Geeta, married for 13 years, teaches in a government school in Anjar in Gujarat and earns about Rs 14,000.
Two years after marriage her husband Ramesh got a job in Mumbai, earning Rs 1400 a month.
But since Geeta was expecting a child and didn't think his salary would be enough for the family, she refused to accompany him and continued working.
"I was asked to leave Anjar but how could they expect us to live on his income alone. So I filed an appeal as I did not want to move to Mumbai," says Geeta.
Court battle
Ramesh refused to accept this and took the matter to court. He says that being married meant that it was Geeta's duty to live with him irrespective of how much he earned.
When Geeta refused, Ramesh filed for divorce in 1996 on grounds of cruelty and desertion Under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act.
Subsequently, the trial court in Bhuj heard the case and ruled that as per the Hindu Marriage Act, it was Geeta's duty to accompany her husband and quit her job.
Fundamental right
Geeta didn't want a divorce and the same year she appealed in the district court, which overturned the trial court's decision.
The court also declared that this went against her fundamental rights and the right to equality.
The Supreme Court will hear the writ petition, which was filed in April 2005, this week.
The case is open to the interpretation of judges and it will be interesting to see what implications it might have on rights of working women.
Bookmarks