Back
2008(8) Supreme 317
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
C.K. Thakker and D.K. Jain, JJ.
Suman Kapur — Appellant
versus
Sudhir Kapur — Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 6582 of 2008
Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 10907 of 2007
Decided on : 07-11-2008
1964 AC 644: (1963)2 All ER 966; (1975)2 SCC 326; (1981) 4 SCC 250; (1988)1 SCC 105; (1994) 1 SCC 337; (2001) 4 SCC 250; (2002) 5 SCC 706; (2005) 2 SCC 22; (2006) 3 SCC 778 – Relied upon.
(b) Constitution of India, 1950 – Article 136 – Filing of appeal under Article 136 of the Constitution is not a right of the party – But, since the Constitution allows a party to appeal within a period of ninety days from an order passed by the High Court, no precipitate action can be taken by creating the situation of fait accompli – Action of respondent husband by re-marrying within the limitation period not proper. (Para 48)
Facts of the case :
1. Appellant Suman Kapur is the wife and respondent Sudhir Kapur is the husband. The matrimonial alliance was entered into between the parties as per Hindu rites and rituals in Delhi on March 04, 1984.
2. Appellant terminated her pregnancy twice and there was a miscarriage. While appellant asserts that the respondent was through out apprised of the situation and the reasons, the respondents claims to have been kept in dark.
3. Respondent obtained divorce on the ground of mental cruelty by the wife, which was confirmed by the High Court.
Finding of the Court :
There is no infirmity in the impugned judgment. However the respondent husband should not have re-married within the period allowed for appeal against the impugned judgment.
Result : Appeal disposed of.
Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, the key points are as follows:
The appeal concerns a divorce case under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, where the appellant-wife challenges the decree of divorce granted to the respondent-husband on the grounds of mental cruelty (!) (!) .
The marriage was solemnized in 1984, and the parties had no children from the marriage (!) .
The appellant-wife was a highly educated professional, actively pursuing her career, and had received prestigious fellowships and awards. She was also employed at a reputable institute during the marriage (!) .
The appellant-wife suffered multiple pregnancies, with two terminations in 1984 and 1985, and a natural miscarriage in 1989. She claims these pregnancies were terminated with the knowledge and consent of the respondent-husband (!) (!) (!) .
The respondent-husband alleged that the appellant-wife secretly terminated pregnancies without his knowledge and that she was indifferent to her marital obligations, prioritizing her career over her family responsibilities (!) (!) .
The respondent filed a petition for divorce on grounds of cruelty and desertion, citing her conduct, including the termination of pregnancies without consent, her attitude towards in-laws, and her statements indicating a lack of interest in continuing the marriage (!) (!) .
The trial court found evidence of mental cruelty, particularly due to the termination of pregnancies without the husband's knowledge and her unwillingness to perform matrimonial obligations. It did not grant a divorce on the ground of desertion (!) .
The High Court confirmed the trial court's findings, emphasizing the appellant-wife's continuous avoidance of marital relations, her letters expressing disinterest, and her focus on her career. It also considered her written entries and statements indicating her preference for independence and career over the marriage (!) (!) (!) (!) .
The appellant-wife argued that the courts erred in granting divorce based on mental cruelty, claiming that her conduct was within normal marital disagreements and that her actions did not constitute cruelty (!) .
The respondent-husband supported the courts' decisions, asserting that the evidence clearly demonstrated mental cruelty, and that the findings of fact should not be disturbed (!) (!) .
The Court upheld the findings of mental cruelty, noting that such cruelty can be mental or physical and that it must be assessed based on the entire matrimonial relationship and conduct of the parties (!) (!) (!) .
The Court clarified that mental cruelty involves conduct causing reasonable apprehension that it would be harmful or injurious to live with the other spouse, and that it can include sustained, unjustifiable behavior affecting the mental health of the spouse (!) (!) .
The Court observed that the appellant-wife's letters and conduct demonstrated a persistent desire to pursue her independence and career, which was viewed as a form of mental cruelty by the courts (!) (!) .
The Court noted that the respondent-husband remarried before the expiry of the period for filing a Special Leave Petition, which was considered inappropriate given the procedural rights of the appellant-wife (!) (!) .
To balance justice, the Court directed the respondent-husband to pay a sum of Rs. Five lakhs to the appellant-wife by a specified date, acknowledging the circumstances but not reversing the divorce decree (!) .
The appeal was disposed of accordingly, with each party to bear their own costs (!) .
These points summarize the essential facts, legal findings, and principles discussed in the case, emphasizing the importance of conduct, mental cruelty, and procedural propriety in matrimonial disputes.
JUDGMENT
C.K. Thakker, J. —
1. Leave granted.
2. The present appeal is filed by the appellant-wife being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the decree of divorce dated August 07, 2004 passed by the Additional District Judge, Delhi in HMA No. 322/2001/96 and confirmed by the High Court of Delhi on January 29, 2007 in Matrimonial Appeal No. 62 of 2004.
3. The facts in nutshell are that the appellant Suman Kapur is the wife and respondent Sudhir Kapur is the husband. The matrimonial alliance was entered into between the parties as per Hindu rites and rituals in Delhi on March 04, 1984. It was the case of the appellant that both the parties were friends from childhood and were knowing each other since 1966. They had also studied together in the same school. They were very close since 1974 and after a friendship of more than a decade, they decided to marry. The marriage was inter-caste marriage. Though initially parents of both the parties were opposed to the marriage, subsequently, they consented. The parties have no issue from the said wedlock.
4. The appellant has a brilliant academic record and has been the recipient of the prestigious Lalor Foundation Fellowship of United States of America (USA), offered to young scientists for outstanding performance in the area of research. According to her, at the time of her marriage, she was in employment with the Department of Bio-chemistry in the All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS) and was also pursuing her Ph.D.
5. It is the case of the appellant that she conceived for the first time in 1984, within a period of about one month of the marriage, but on account of being exposed to harmful radiations as a part of lab work of her Ph.D. thesis, she decided to terminate the pregnancy. The appellant asserted that it was done with the knowledge and consent of the respondent-husband.
6. Again, in 1985, she conceived. But even that pregnancy was required to be terminated on the ground of an acute kidney infection for which she had to undergo an IVP, which entailed six abdominal X-rays and radiometric urinary reflect test with radioactive drinking dye. She claimed that even the second pregnancy was terminated with the knowledge and consent of the respondent-husband.
7. According to the appellant, third time she became pregnant in 1989, but she suffered natural abortion on account of having a congenitally small uterus and thus prone to recurrent miscarriages.
8. It is the case of the appellant that though she was well-placed and having good job in AIIMS in Delhi, only with a view to accompany her husband who was serving in Bombay, she left the job. In 1988, the parties together left for USA. The appellant was awarded Lalor Foundation Fellowship in USA for which she had to move to Kansas city and could not join the respondent-husband at the place of his work.
9. The case of the respondent-husband, on the other hand was that since solemnization of marriage between the parties, the attitude, conduct and behaviour of the appellant-wife towards the respondent as well as his family members was indignant and rude. It was alleged by him that first pregnancy was terminated in 1984 by the appellant-wife without consent and even without knowledge of the respondent. Same thing was repeated at the time of termination of second pregnancy in 1985. He was kept in complete dark about the so-called miscarriage by the appellant-wife in 1989. The respondent was thus very much aggrieved since he was denied the joy of feeling of fatherhood and the parents of the respondent were also deprived of grand-parenthood of a new arrival. It was also contended by the respondent that the attitude of the appellant-wife towards her in-laws was humiliating. Several instances were cited in support of the said conduct and behaviour by the husband.
10. The respondent-husband, therefore, filed HMA No. 322/2001/96 in the Court of Additional District Judge, Delhi under Section 13(1)(ia) and (ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (he
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
