The Kerala High Court asserted that no one has the right to judge a woman based on her dress or lifestyle choices. This statement was made in a Matrimonial Appeal filed by a wife whose husband accused her of immoral behavior. The Division Bench, consisting of Justice Devan Ramachandran and Justice M.B. Snehalatha, expressed their disagreement with the Family Court’s ruling, which labeled a site called ‘bumble’ as a "Dating App" and suggested that the wife was seeking male companionship. The Court deemed such conclusions to be sexist and rooted in outdated patriarchal views, stressing that no one should judge women by their appearance or personal choices.
The Bench further observed that society often equates femininity with modesty and submission, highlighting the deep-rooted influence of rigid gender roles and patriarchy. They noted, “Hearing these cases, we realize how much rigid gender roles and patriarchy have trickled down into societies and guide our thoughts and actions, even in ways we do not understand, at times. We unfortunately continue to follow and perpetuate such unconsciously, which surely warrants continuous education and close introspection.” Advocate Jagan Abraham M. George represented the Appellant, while Senior Advocate S. Sreekumar represented the Respondent.
Factual Background The Appellant was the former wife of the Respondent, and their divorce had been finalized through mutual consent. Despite the divorce, their relationship remained contentious, with severe allegations exchanged between them. While the husband accused the wife of being morally loose, she labeled him a narcissist and even a sexual pervert. Their disputes escalated before and during the divorce proceedings, particularly concerning the custody of their two children, aged ten and eight. Both parties sought custody, and the wife also filed for maintenance before the Family Court.
The Family Court ruled that the wife was unfit to have custody of the children, citing her alleged immoral behavior—such as wearing revealing clothing, engaging with "dating apps," and socializing with male friends. Challenging this ruling, the wife approached the High Court. After hearing both sides, the High Court stated, “In summation, it is apodictic that we cannot find favour with the impugned judgment and decree and that it deserves to be set aside, denouncing all above mentioned findings against the appellant.”
The Court further clarified that clothing is a form of self-expression and part of an individual’s identity, or a personal aesthetic. It stressed that in any civilized society, it is unacceptable to judge a woman solely based on her attire or assume her moral character based on it, as such views are rooted in patriarchal notions. The Court emphasized that a woman's choice in clothing is personal and should not be subjected to moral judgment, particularly in court decisions. It also reminded that judgments should not be influenced by personal opinions, as the Constitution guarantees equal rights to all, regardless of gender.
The Court also criticized the Family Court’s suggestion that a woman should always feel sorrow after a divorce, viewing it as a reflection of misogynistic prejudice and reinforcing harmful gender stereotypes that expect women to be submissive and servile. It declared that this kind of thinking could not be endorsed in any form. The Court concluded by stating that while children love both parents, their emotional well-being and personal growth are paramount. The High Court thus appointed the Appellant-mother as the children's guardian, emphasizing the importance of ensuring their psychological development as future citizens.
Cause Title: XXXXX v. XXXXX Citation: 2024:KER:91898 Date: November-26-2024 Bench: Justice Devan Ramachandran, Justice M.B. Snehalatha
