The Supreme Court has allowed the civil appeal arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 25076 of 2024 and expunged the findings of cruelty and desertion recorded by the Family Court and affirmed by the High Court against the appellant-wife. The Court upheld the decree of divorce granted by the Family Court but directed that it shall be treated as having been passed on the ground of irretrievable breakdown of marriage. The connected SLP (Civil) No. 28451 of 2024 filed by the respondent-husband seeking prosecution of the appellant for perjury was dismissed.
Justice Sandeep Mehta, speaking for the Bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath, observed that the appellant, a qualified dentist, had made legitimate choices in pursuit of her professional career and to secure a safe and stable environment for the upbringing of her minor child who suffered from medical complications. The Court held that branding such conduct as cruelty or desertion was unsustainable. The reasoning in the impugned judgments was found to be founded upon archaic societal assumptions that a wife’s professional identity is subject to an implied spousal veto and that her autonomy must yield to the husband’s occupational demands.
The Court emphasised that a well-educated and professionally qualified woman cannot be expected to be confined within rigid matrimonial obligations. Marriage does not eclipse her individuality nor subjugate her identity under that of her spouse. The endeavour of the appellant to establish her own dental clinic at Ahmedabad, rather than allowing her professional qualification to lie dormant, could not be viewed with disapproval merely because it did not conform to the expectations of the husband and in-laws. The Court noted that the appellant had initially sacrificed her practice to join her husband at Kargil, returned to Ahmedabad during pregnancy due to limited medical facilities, and later prioritised the child’s health needs requiring specialised care unavailable at remote postings.
The Supreme Court found the findings of the Family Court appalling and totally unacceptable. These included treating the opening of the dental clinic without prior intimation to the family as cruelty, the appellant’s preference to stay at her parental home during visits to Ahmedabad as cruelty, and her inability to reside at every place of the husband’s posting as desertion. The Court held that such an approach was pedantic, regressive and reflected an ultra-conservative mindset. It observed that the expectation that a woman must invariably sacrifice her career and conform to traditional notions of cohabitation, irrespective of her aspirations or the welfare of the child, cannot be countenanced in the present day.
The Court further noted that the material on record did not substantiate allegations of coercion regarding religious conversion. It held that the steps taken by the appellant for gaining independence and pursuing her career were justified in the prevailing facts and circumstances. While the decree of divorce was not disturbed in view of the fact that the appellant no longer wished to resume matrimony and the respondent had reportedly remarried, the observations and findings pertaining to cruelty and desertion were expressly expunged and set aside.
In the connected petition, the Supreme Court held that the allegations made by the respondent for prosecution of the appellant under Section 195 read with Section 340 CrPC did not disclose the necessary ingredients of the offence and appeared to be instigated by personal vendetta arising from prolonged matrimonial disputes. The concurrent findings of the Courts below rejecting the application were upheld.
Case Details:
Title: Ann Saurabh Dutt v. Lieutenant Colonel Saurabh Iqbal Bahadur Dutt
Case No.: Civil Appeal No. of 2026 (Arising out of SLP(Civil) No. 25076 of 2024) with SLP(Civil) No. 28451 of 2024
Coram: Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta
Date of Judgment: 12.05.2026
Click HERE for full Judgment.
Lawcutor 