Back
2008 Supreme(Raj) 1136
[Citation : 2009(3) RLW 1954 (SC)]
(Supreme Court)
Suman Kapur Vs. Sudhir Kapur (Thakker, J.)
HON'BLE C.K. THAKKER, J.
HON'BLE D.K. JAIN, J.
Suman Kapur
Versus
Sudhir Kapur
Civil Appeal No.6582 of 2008, decided on 07.11.2008
Ms. Kamini Jaiswal, Ms. Shomila Bakshi and Ms. Sunita Dwivedi, for Appellant;
T.S. Doabia, Sr. Advocate, Manish Sharma, Vishal Malhotra and Anil Nag, for Respondents
Headnote:(a) Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, Sec. 13(i)(ia) — Divorce on the ground of mental cruelty — Wife constantly and continuously avoiding staying with husband and preventing him to have matrimonial relations — Wife wanted that husband should not bring his parents — She had gone to extent of making serious allegation that husband married to some other woman — Held — All such conduct of wife amounts to mental cruelty. (Paras 35 to 38, 41 & 45)
¼d½ fgUnw fookg vf/kfu;e] 1955] /kkjk 13¼ia½ & ekufld Øwjrk ds vk/kkj ij fookg foPNsn & iRuh fujUrj :i ls ifr ds lkFk jgus ls cp jgh gS vkSj mls oSokfgd lEcU/k LFkkfir djus ls jksd jgh gS & iRuh pkgrh gS fd ifr dks vius ekrk-firk dks lkFk ugha ykuk pkfg;s & og bl lhek rd xaHkhj vkjski yxkrh pyh xbZ fd ifr us fdlh vU; efgyk ls fookg dj fy;k & vfHkfu/kkZfjr & iRuh dk ;g ,slk lEiw.kZ vkpj.k ekufld Øwjrk dh Js.kh esa vkrk gSA ¼in la[;k 35 ls 38] 41 ls 45½
(b) Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, Sec. 12 — Divorce decree passed by trial Court and High Court — Re-marriage before the expiry of period of filing special leave to Appeal to the Apex Court — Held — Husband having re-married before expiry of period of filing S.L.P. against decree, directed to pay 5 lakh rupees to wife.
Appeal disposed of. (Para 48)
¼[k½ fgUnw fookg vf/kfu;e] 1955] /kkjk 12 & fopkj.k U;k;ky; ,oa mPp U;k;ky; }kjk fookg foPNsn dh fMØh ikfjr dh xbZ & loksZPp U;k;ky; ds le{k vihy djus dh foks"k btktr nk;j djus dh vof/k ds volku ls iwoZ iqufoZokg djuk & vfHkfu/kkZfjr & fMØh ds fo:) ,l-,y-ih- nk;j djus dh vof/k ds volku ls iwoZ ifr }kjk iqufoZokg djus ds dkj.k iRuh dks ikap yk[k :i;s dh jkfk nsus ds funsZk fn;sA ¼in la[;k 48½
vihy fuLrkfjr dhA
Hon'ble THAKKER, J.— 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 (hereinafter r
