New Delhi, Nov. 8: The Supreme Court has upheld a divorce decree against a woman scientist who put her career before marriage and, according to her husband, refused to become a mother lest it jeopardised her “chances in life”.

A Delhi district judge had earlier ruled against the woman on the ground of “cruelty” and the high court later endorsed the judgment.

The woman’s husband, who had filed for divorce, had claimed that ever since their marriage in 1984, his wife, a doctorate in biochemistry then working with AIIMS, had refused to bear a child.

He said she had abortions in 1984 and 1985 without his consent, though the woman claimed she was forced to terminate the pregnancies and her husband was aware of the reasons.

The husband, who alleged that he was also kept in the dark about a “so-called” miscarriage in 1989, said his wife was only worried about her career, had deprived him of his conjugal rights and, at times, even said she wasn’t interested in living with him. He also alleged that his wife had told him if he was so eager to be a father, he could marry another woman or adopt a child.

The woman, who now lives in the US, told the trial court she was doing her best to please her husband. “Precisely for that purpose, she had left her service in Delhi and joined the husband in Mumbai,” her lawyer said.

She said she was well educated and wanted to contribute to society, but that didn’t mean she was not performing her marital duties.

The woman claimed that she conceived shortly after their marriage but was “unfortunately” forced to terminate the pregnancy — with her husband’s “consent” — after being exposed to harmful radiation while doing her PhD.

“The same thing was repeated in 1985,” she said, though this time the reason was an acute infection in the kidney. Her husband, she added, had consented to the abortion. “In 1989,” she said, “there was a natural miscarriage.”

The woman also told the court she had to go to the US for a fellowship but her husband, “instead of being happy” about her “progress”, initiated court proceedings out of “jealousy”.

After hearing both sides out, the court said desertion couldn’t be a ground for divorce as they hadn’t lived apart continuously for two years but agreed there was cruelty on the wife’s part.

The court ruled the woman had terminated her pregnancy twice without telling her husband and referred to letters she had written to him as well as a notice — through an advocate — that showed that she wasn’t interested in continuing marital relations. The woman then moved the high court, which upheld the divorce decree in January last year.

In the apex court, the woman’s lawyer said even if all the allegations against her were accepted, they were in the nature of “normal wear and tear” in the life of a couple.

She also pointed out that the man had remarried while the case was before the apex court and even had a child.

The apex court — which took into account one of her letters that said a husband should not make living together a condition for the wife — threw out her appeal, saying “continuous cessation of marital intercourse” constituted “legal cruelty”.

The court, however, asked the husband to pay the woman Rs 5 lakh for remarrying while her appeal was pending.