Recently, the Supreme Court criticised the “regressive” approach adopted by the Family Court and Gujarat High Court in treating a woman’s decision to pursue her profession and live separately for her child’s welfare as cruelty and desertion under the Hindu Marriage Act. The dispute arose from divorce proceedings filed by the husband on grounds of cruelty and desertion, along with proceedings under Sections 195 and 340 CrPC seeking prosecution of the wife for alleged perjury. The Court held that marriage does not extinguish a woman’s individuality or professional aspirations and expunged all adverse findings against the wife.
Brief Facts :
The case arose from matrimonial disputes between the parties after the Respondent-husband, an Army officer posted at Kargil, alleged that the Appellant-wife, a qualified dentist, had deserted him and treated him with cruelty by choosing to stay in Ahmedabad and pursue her dental profession instead of residing with him at his place of posting. The wife had returned to Ahmedabad during pregnancy owing to lack of proper medical facilities and later continued residing there after their daughter developed seizure-related medical complications requiring specialised treatment.
The Respondent instituted divorce proceedings under the Hindu Marriage Act on grounds of cruelty and desertion before the Family Court. During the pendency of proceedings, he also filed an application under Sections 195 and 340 CrPC alleging that the Appellant had made false statements during maintenance proceedings and sought her prosecution for perjury. The Family Court granted divorce against the wife and the Gujarat High Court affirmed the findings, leading to the present appeals before the Supreme Court.
Contentions of the Appellant :
The Appellant-wife contended that the findings of cruelty and desertion recorded by the Family Court were based on patriarchal assumptions and an outdated understanding of matrimonial obligations. She argued that her decision to stay in Ahmedabad was compelled by the medical needs and welfare of the minor daughter as proper healthcare facilities were unavailable at Kargil. It was further contended that pursuing her profession as a qualified dentist and opening a dental clinic could not legally amount to cruelty or desertion. The Appellant maintained that marriage does not require a woman to abandon her professional aspirations or individuality merely because her husband is posted elsewhere. While she did not challenge the dissolution of marriage itself, she specifically sought expunging of the adverse observations and findings recorded against her.
Contentions of the Respondent :
The Respondent-husband supported the judgments of the courts below and contended that the appellant deliberately prioritised her professional career over matrimonial obligations. He argued that her refusal to reside with him at his place of posting, opening a dental clinic without informing him or his family members, and insistence on staying separately at her parental home amounted to cruelty and desertion. The Respondent further alleged that the appellant attempted to coerce him into converting to Christianity and had made false statements during maintenance proceedings. On these grounds, he sought prosecution of the appellant under Sections 195 and 340 CrPC for alleged perjury and supported the decree of divorce granted by the Family Court.
Observation of the Court :
The Supreme Court strongly disapproved the reasoning adopted by the Family Court and observed that the findings against the wife were rooted in “deeply entrenched archaic societal assumptions” that a wife’s professional identity is subordinate to the wishes of her husband. The Court held that such an approach was wholly incompatible with constitutional values recognising dignity, autonomy and equal participation of women in society.
The Court categorically observed that “Marriage does not eclipse her individuality, nor does it subjugate her identity under that of her spouse.” It further emphasised that “A woman can no longer be treated as a mere appendage to the household of the husband.”
While examining the findings of the Family Court, the Court termed the approach of the Presiding Judge as “pedantic and regressive” and held that the wife’s decision to stay in Ahmedabad for the welfare and medical treatment of the minor child could never amount to desertion. The Court further remarked that “To brandish the effort of the wife to pursue her own career goals as acts of cruelty… is highly objectionable and deplorable in the era where the society proudly talks of women empowerment.” The Bench also criticised the expectation that the wife should sacrifice her profession merely because the husband was posted in a remote area and observed that such reasoning reflected an “ultra-conservative and feudalistic mindset.”
On the issue of balancing matrimonial obligations and professional aspirations, the Court observed that the husband ought to have supported the Appellant’s professional ambitions instead of treating them as a ground for matrimonial fault. The Court held that forcing a qualified woman to abandon her career would amount to a “sinful wastage of talent and resources.”
Decision of the Court :
The Supreme Court partly allowed the appeal and expunged the findings of cruelty and desertion recorded against the Appellant-wife by the Family Court and Gujarat High Court. The Court, however, upheld the decree of divorce considering the irretrievable breakdown of marriage and the fact that the Respondent had remarried. It further dismissed the husband’s plea under Sections 195 and 340 CrPC seeking prosecution of the wife for alleged perjury.
Case Title: Ann Saurabh Dutt v. Lieutenant Colonel Saurabh Iqbal Bahadur Dutt
Case No.: Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 25076 of 2024 with SLP (Civil) No. 28451 of 2024
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Vikram Nath and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Mehta
Advocates for the Appellant: Mr. Gaurav Agarwal, Senior Advocate (NP), Ms. Jesal Wahi, AOR, Mr. Bhargav Hasurkar, Advocate
Advocates for the Respondent: Not Mentioned
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
