Real judgements, distilled

Legal Case Shots

Court judgements broken down into the case type, how the decision played out, and the lesson worth remembering, with the full judgement available as a PDF.

Frequently asked questions

Is this suitable for use in legal research and court filings?+

Legal Case Shots is built to help you quickly identify and understand relevant precedent. For citation in pleadings or filings, always verify against the full judgment PDF and current citation format (e.g., 2026 INSC ___).

How is a "lesson learnt" different from the judgment's holding?+

The holding is what the court legally decided. The lesson learnt translates that into a practical takeaway: what a lawyer should factor into case strategy or client advice as a result of this precedent.

Is the full judgment available, or just a summary?+

Both. Each case shows a distilled summary (case type, key holding, and lesson learnt) and links to the full judgment as a PDF for when you need the complete text for research or citation.

Can I filter judgments by date or case type?+

Yes. Use Advanced Filters to narrow results by decision date and by practice area, including Constitutional Law, Criminal Law, Service & Administrative Law, Family Law, Civil Property & Inheritance, and Labour & Industrial Law.

Can I search judgments by a specific judge?+

Yes. You can filter judgments by the judge or bench that decided the case, which is useful for tracking how a particular judge has reasoned on similar issues across multiple rulings.

What is Legal Case Shots?+

Legal Case Shots is a searchable database of Supreme Court of India judgments, each broken down into the case type, the court's key holding, and a practical lesson learnt, with the full judgment available as a PDF for citation or deeper reading.

Family LawSupreme Court of India

Ann Saurabh Dutt v. Lieutenant Colonel Saurabh Iqbal Bahadur Dutt

Civil Appeal · 2026 INSC 475Decided 12 May 2026
C.A. No.-007457-007457 - 2026
Justice Vikram Nath · Justice Sandeep Mehta · Justice Vijay Bishnoi

Background

A wife, a qualified dentist, sought to build her own professional practice in Ahmedabad rather than relocate to a remote location dictated by her husband's Army posting; she also prioritised a stable environment for raising her child. The Family Court, affirmed by the High Court, had treated her pursuit of her career and her decisions around the child's upbringing as "cruelty" and "desertion" of her husband, while granting a divorce decree. She appealed to the Supreme Court challenging only these adverse findings of cruelty and desertion (not the divorce itself), and in a connected matter, the husband separately petitioned the Supreme Court seeking her prosecution for perjury under Sections 195/340 CrPC.

Decision Breakdown

The Supreme Court strongly criticised the reasoning of the courts below as resting on "archaic," "ultra-conservative," and patriarchal assumptions that a wife's career and autonomy must yield to her husband's professional and geographical demands, holding that a professionally qualified woman's pursuit of her career and her choices for her child's welfare cannot be branded as cruelty or desertion. Finding no credible evidence to support the cruelty allegations (including an unsubstantiated claim about forced religious conversion), the Court expunged and set aside the specific findings of cruelty and desertion recorded against the wife. However, since both parties confirmed there was no prospect of reconciliation and the husband had already remarried, the Court did not disturb the divorce decree itself, converting its basis to "irretrievable breakdown of marriage" instead, so the appeal was only partly allowed. In the connected petition, the Court dismissed the husband's plea for the wife's prosecution for perjury, finding the allegations were driven by personal vendetta rather than any genuine case of false evidence.

Lesson Learnt

A woman's pursuit of her professional career or decisions made for her child's welfare cannot lawfully be treated as marital cruelty or desertion merely because they conflict with a spouse's expectations: marriage does not require a wife to subordinate her individual identity and aspirations to her husband's choices.

Ann Saurabh Dutt v. Lieutenant Colonel Saurabh Iqbal Bahadur Dutt – Legal Case Shots | LegalAware