The Supreme Court of India in Ann Saurabh Dutt Vs Lieutenant Colonel Saurabh Iqbal Bahadur Dutt, held that a professionally qualified woman cannot be branded “cruel” or accused of “desertion” merely because she chooses to pursue her career and create a safe environment for her child.

Allowing the appeal in part, the Supreme Court strongly criticised the reasoning adopted by the Family Court and the High Court, describing it as “pedantic,” “regressive,” “ultra-conservative,” and rooted in patriarchal assumptions. The Court held that a woman’s professional identity, autonomy, and decision to balance career with motherhood cannot be construed as matrimonial misconduct.

“3. We are well into the 21st Century, and yet an attempt by a qualified woman to pursue her professional career and to secure a safe and stable environment for the upbringing of her child has been treated as an act of cruelty and desertion by the Courts below.”

“4. The reasoning which permeates the impugned judgments appears to be founded upon deeply entrenched archaic societal assumptions that a wife’s professional identity is subject to an implied spousal veto;…”

“22. Merely because the wife decided to reside at Ahmedabad with the primary intention to provide a safer environment and better health care to her daughter… branding such conduct as constituting cruelty or desertion was atrocious to say the least.”

“26. The expectation that the wife could not even think of pursuing her career in Dentistry, is indicative of regressive and feudalistic mindset.”

“29. We are convinced that he has an attitude of domineering and control, which must have been the probable cause for the appellant taking the steps for gaining independence and pursuing her career goals.”

Decision of the Court

Accordingly, the Supreme Court passed the following directions:

In the wife’s appeal

• Findings of cruelty and desertion under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 were expunged and set aside.
• The decree of divorce was not disturbed, considering the respondent had remarried and the wife did not seek restoration of marriage.
• The divorce decree was directed to be treated as one passed on the ground of irretrievable breakdown of marriage.

In the husband’s petition

• The husband’s plea seeking prosecution of the wife for perjury under Section 195 CrPC [Section 379 BNSS] read with Section 340 CrPC was rejected.
• The Court found the petition motivated by personal vendetta and lacking legal merit.

Thus, the wife’s appeal was partly allowed, while the husband’s special leave petition was dismissed.

Citation : 2026 INSC 475

Other Sources :

Index of Divorce Judgments is here. 

Key Contributor :

Mrs. Suprajaa Rajan B.Com., LL.B., LL.M.

+91-9606345150