The 'ideal wife' in the Indian courtroom

Judicial interpretations of marriage reflect the conflict between constitutional rights and cultural morality

Marriage in India has long been perceived as both a sacred union and a social institution, with courts mediating between these two competing ideals. The judicial interpretations of marriage have a contradictory history: On one hand are the constitutional rights of equality, autonomy and personal liberty. On the other is the idea of marriage as a duty, endurance and sacrament, often reinforcing gendered expectations. Across decades of case law, courts have oscillated between pragmatic and moral approaches to marriage. This duality reflects the conflict between evolving social realities of marital conjugal life and the persisting influence of cultural morality on legal reasoning.

One such action speaks in strong favour as on August 5, 2025, the Madhya Pradesh High Court dismissed a husband’s appeal for divorce, and lauded his wife for her steadfast commitment to marriage despite years of desertion. The reasoning was striking: The wife, though deserted for nearly two decades, had continued to live with her in-laws, with constant care for them, and preserved every outward symbol of her marriage. The Bench praised her as the “ideal Indian woman,” rooted in dharma, cultural values, and the sanctity of the marital bond. Hindu marriage, the court said, is “sacred, eternal and indissoluble”, a union to be preserved regardless of hardship. On the surface, this is a story of quiet resilience. Yet when a constitutional court codifies that resilience into a judicial ideal, it prompts a deeper question: Whose values does it truly serve, and at what unseen cost?

This approach is far from new. In Narmada Jena vs Bidyadhar Swain case in 2015, the Orissa High Court reproduced a Sanskrit verse delineating the attributes of an “ideal wife”: a servant in household duties, a minister in counsel, a mother in nurturing, Rambha in the conjugal bed, patient as the earth, beautiful as Goddess Lakshmi, and devoted to family tradition. The judicial application of this verse creates a normative framework that constrains women’s autonomy and individuality. The wife is cast as the guardian of marital stability, bearing the burden of emotional, domestic, and sexual labour, while the husband is seldom held to the same standards. By embedding cultural ideals into law, such judgements risk perpetuating gender hierarchies under the guise of judicial reasoning.

Not all courts, however, have embraced this idealised image. In Basant Kumar Dwivedi vs Kanchan Dwivedi case in 2024, the Allahabad High Court made a crucial distinction: “The Court has to deal, not with an ideal husband and ideal wife (assuming any such exist) but with the particular man and woman before it.” This recognition is significant. Invoking mythical archetypes only masks the lived realities of conflict and the rights of individuals involved. But such realism has often been the exception rather than the rule.

In 2022, the Kerala High Court lamented that “use and throw” consumerism had crept into matrimonial relationships, warning that younger generations see marriage as “an evil” to be avoided. Such language reveals a broader judicial pattern: Preserving the stability of marriage by reaffirming traditional roles, particularly for women. While stability is a legitimate goal, it should not come at the expense of equality or personal dignity. Endurance is one virtue; autonomy is another. The law must hold space for both.

The Supreme Court is replete with examples of emerging judicial thought on marriage. In A Jayachandra vs Aneel Kaur case in 2004, the court spoke of Hindu marriage as a samskar, a sacred union conceived to join together two souls in love, affection and mutual care. This case concerned a long-drawn matrimonial dispute between two professionals, with mutual allegations of cruelty and desertion. The court, while noting breakdowns of marriages as real and complex, simultaneously invoked the philosophical ideal of marriage drawing on the principle laid down in Dastane vs Dastane case in 1975, in which the SC observed that the foundation of a sound marriage lies in tolerance, adjustment, and mutual respect and “The ideal couple or a mere ideal one will probably have no occasion to go to Matrimonial Court.”

The Apex Court in Dolly Rani vs Manish Kumar Chanchal case in 2024 emphasised that a Hindu marriage is not a ceremonial or commercial transaction but a solemn event establishing the status of husband and wife and laying the foundation for an evolving family, the basic unit of Indian society. The court further observed that the mutual promises and oaths exchanged in marriage are intended to create a lifelong commitment and adherence to this commitment can reduce marital breakdowns and the resultant need for judicial intervention. By framing marriage in terms of both social significance and personal responsibility, the judgment foregrounds the aspirational ideal of marital fidelity and enduring partnership.

Cultural morality

Women have always been considered the moral centre of marital fidelity, expected to bear the burden if necessary and to engage in self-sacrifice for the honour of the family. The underpinning ideals cast men only rarely.

This asymmetry threatens Article 14, the guarantee of equality, and Article 21, the guarantee of dignity, under the Constitution. In Joseph Shine vs Union of India in 2018 and Shafin Jahan vs Asokan K M in 2018, the Supreme Court underscored individual autonomy as a crucial aspect of intimate and marital relationships. However, matrimonial jurisprudence often perpetuates the same traditional gender stereotypes as society: valourising endurance instead of choice, duty instead of desire.

Thus, courts have become the means of maintaining cultural morality by holding women responsible for carrying the society forward while simultaneously limiting their autonomy.

The conflict between constitutional rights and cultural morality permeates into broader societal structures. Despite faster urbanisation and greater economic empowerment of women, marriage in the country is still constrained by caste, religion and family parameters. Inter-caste marriage is still anathema to the Indian social order.

According to the 2011 Census, only 6% of Indian marriages are inter-caste, indicating the continued limitations on freedom of choice. Sociologist Anthony Giddens’ idea of “pure relationships” signifies partnerships based on emotional give-and-take rather than on obligations or procreation, a model now finding precedence in India.

Delayed marriages, divorce cases and cohabitation point to these new norms where the right to make a choice and not just duty form the basis of marital legitimacy.

This evolution of social reality finds an uneven reflection in the judiciary. While some courts, just like in the case of Basant Kumar Dwivedi, lay emphasis on pragmatism and interpersonal factors, others, like Narmada Jena, lean towards endurance and sacrificial importance limiting the agency of women.

Thus, a paradox arises in jurisprudence where constitutional courts in some cases affirm the autonomous right of the individuals, while local culture sets the boundaries of autonomy in matrimonial affairs.

Marriage in India today stands at a crossroads. One side stresses permanence, duty and sacrament; the other, equality, autonomy and negotiation. They should never be mutually exclusive.

The real strength of marriage in 21st-century India will not lie in enforcing a single script for every so-called “ideal spouse” justified by the scripture.

The strength will lie, instead, in allowing couples to negotiate their own ideal set of mutual care, respect, and freedom of choice.

(Jisu Ketan Pattanaik is assistant professor of Sociology and Sumit Kumar Singh is research assistant and student at the National University of Study and Research in Law, Ranchi)