This article is written by Shreeji Saraf. This article is about the case of Suman Kapur vs. Sudhir Kapur (2009) 1 SCC 422, which in turn further provides an understanding of the facts, what were the issues raised, judgement of the court, arguments that were presented by both the parties and it highlights what were legal aspects involved in the case. In addition, it further goes on to discuss what are the different perceptions of cruelty. 

Introduction 

The case of Suman Kapur vs. Sudhir Kapur (2009) highlights the concepts of cruelty. In this particular case, the husband, Sudhir Kapur, is establishing that the acts that were committed by the wife, Suman Kapur, in relation to the termination of pregnancy without the consent of the husband amounts to mental cruelty. Cruelty can either be mental or physical cruelty. This totally depends and varies on the facts and circumstances of cases. The act of cruelty is not compulsorily intentional, and it can be unintentional.  The important aspect that the current case deals with is the significance of mental cruelty, and the court, in regard to this, has highlighted various judgements that deal with cruelty. It has been noted that the concept of cruelty keeps on changing with time.  

Details of the case

Name of the Appellant: Suman Kapur 

Name of the Respondent: Sudhir Kapur

Citation of the case: (2009) 1 SCC 422

Name of the Court: Hon’ble Supreme Court

Hon’ble Bench: C.K Thakker and D.K. Jain, JJ.

Disposition: Allowed

Judgement passed on: November 7, 2008

Background of the case 

The appellant in this case, i.e., the wife Suman Kapur had been aggrieved by the decision that was passed by the Trial Court and the High Court. She had filed an appeal to the Hon’ble Supreme Court in this regard. The Trial court had passed the decision in the favour of the husband, granting him the decree of divorce on the grounds of mental cruelty caused by the wife. Suman was dissatisfied with the order passed by the Additional District Judge, Delhi, and the High Court, which consequently led to the filing of this appeal before the Supreme Court.

Facts of Suman Kapur vs. Sudhir Kapur (2009) 

The facts of the case are that Suman Kapur is the appellant and Sudhir Kapur is the respondent in the current case. The appellant and respondent married each other on 04.03.1984 as per the Hindu rites and rituals and the marriage between the parties took place in Delhi. Both parties had been acquainted with each other since 1966 and were childhood friends. After studying in the same school, both the appellant and respondent grew very close to each other and made the decision to enter into a matrimonial relationship. Being an intercaste marriage there were several objections by the parents of both the parties but in the end, they agreed. The appellant and the respondent didn’t have any child born out of the said wedlock. The appellant had not only obtained a Lalor Foundation Fellowship of the United States of America but also had an outstanding academic record. The mentioned award was awarded to scientists who had an excellent and marvellous performance in the field of research. As mentioned by the appellant during her marriage she was employed in the Department of Biochemistry at the All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS) and was doing her PhD alongside.

A month after marrying, in 1984 she got pregnant for the first time but as she was being exposed to harmful radiation she aborted the child. This act was done without the knowledge and consent of the husband. But later the appellant argued that the act of abortion was conducted with the knowledge and consent of the husband. Again in 1985, she became pregnant for the second time but this pregnancy even led to abortion on the grounds of acute kidney infection. Even this act of abortion was done without the consent of the husband but the wife argued and contended the same as she had done in the previous one. In 1989 when she conceived for the third time, this time she suffered a natural abortion. In 1988 both the respondent and appellant went to the USA, where she was awarded an award but she couldn’t accompany the respondent back as she had to move to Kansas City. 

The respondent presented his case and mentioned the facts that should be taken into account. According to him after the marriage had taken place there was a certain change of attitude and conduct on the part of the appellant towards her husband and his family members. He contended that he was completely kept in the dark and had no knowledge about the pregnancy of the appellant at the time of termination of the pregnancy. He stated that he and his parents had been completely deprived of the joy of fatherhood and grandparenthood, respectively. In addition to this, the husband added that there were several occasions on the part of the appellant where she had humiliated the respondent’s parents. 

The husband had filed for the decree of divorce stating cruelty and desertions as the grounds before the Court of Additional District Judge, Delhi, under Sections 13(1)(i-a) and (i-b) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. 

When the case was being tried before the Trial Court, the husband alleged that the wife had not taken any consent or even informed about the abortion or the miscarriage to him. According to him, the appellant’s main focus was only her career and nothing else. She had even humiliated the members of the respondent’s family and treated them with cruelty.

Further, the appellant, in several circumstances, had affirmed that her only priority was her career and not the matrimonial relations. She had clearly expressed her disregard in becoming a mother at the cost of her career. In addition to this, she added that the respondent could marry someone else, and she wouldn’t have any objection to it. Further, the wife had sent a notice to the husband mentioning that both the appellant and respondent should separate from each other. In doing so, she would completely focus on her career, and the respondent would get a chance to fulfil the wishes of his parents. 

In answer to the allegations made by the husband above, the wife completely denied all the allegations and objections. As per the wife, she had tried her best to please the respondent and his parents, and for the same, she had even left her job in Delhi. She was employed and well-educated, but this does not indicate her disinterest in maintaining marital relationships. When she became pregnant for the first time, she was really happy, but due to unforeseen circumstances and situations, she was forced to abort the child with her husband’s knowledge and consent. According to her, the husband, instead of being happy and proud of the wife, was completely jealous of seeing her achieve the award. She submitted that the petition should be dismissed, and the husband was not entitled to any claim or relief.

Trial Court’s decision

After taking into consideration all the facts the Trial Court decided that the husband couldn’t seek divorce on the ground of desertion. According to the court, it has been proved that the wife had executed cruelty on the respondent and his family members. As per the court, the husband was not informed about the termination of pregnancy at both times, and when she had suffered a natural abortion, she didn’t inform the same to the husband. The husband had been completely denied his conjugal rights, and this amounts to mental cruelty. The court had made a reference to the letters and notices sent to the husband by the wife as acts of showing no interest in complying with her marital obligations. The court had even referred to the diary of the wife which clearly indicated that she was interested in her career only.

As per the court, for wife, her career was of utmost importance and not the matrimonial obligations. The Trial Court passed the decree of divorce stating that mental cruelty has been exercised by the wife towards the husband and his parents and, therefore, he is entitled to divorce.  

High Court’s decision

Wife being dissatisfied with the order passed by the Trial Court, preferred an appeal to the High Court of Delhi. The High Court after considering all the evidence on record affirmed the order passed by the Trial Court. This order passed by the High Court had been challenged in the present petition. 

There are some of the important findings related to the judgement passed and they are stated as follows:-

• On noticing the facts of the case, the Trial Court established that the wife was only focused on her career and that she had no importance in the matrimonial obligations. The evidence regarding this was submitted by the mother-in-law of the appellant (respondent’s mother). Further, it was established that the wife had failed to maintain her matrimonial relationship and conjugal rights. Both the High Court and Trial Court were of the opinion that the act of cruelty had been established by the wife against the husband after taking into account the evidence presented by the husband.
• Further, the High Court had established that the letters that were sent by the appellant clearly indicated that she was not concerned about the marriage and was completely determined to seek divorce. She was even avoiding staying together with her husband and establishing a matrimonial relationship. In addition, the High Court further noted that when a notice was sent to the husband, the wife had contended that the husband was married to another woman in the USA. This contention was based on the evidence that the husband had mentioned the social security number of his wife in his income return but the social security number did not belong to him but to some lady in America. In reply to the above-mentioned contention, the husband said that it was a typing error and mistake, but the High Court made a point here and mentioned that the wife had gone to such an extent that she was making a serious allegation against his husband.
• The High Court even noticed that the wife herself had admitted that her primary focus is career as she had been independent since 1979 and wanted to continue it like that only. It has been established before the court that the wife, in her personal diary and various letters, had mentioned her disinterest in the homely affairs and matrimonial obligations, and she has even mentioned the respondent’s parents as ghosts. 
• As per the High Court, the husband had tried all the measures in his power to save the marriage; he had even tried convincing his wife but his wife was really adamant regarding her career only. 

Issues raised 

1. Whether the acts executed by the appellant constituted mental cruelty?
2. Whether the respondent was entitled to a decree of divorce?

Arguments of the parties

Appellant

The counsel for the appellant argued that the Trial Court and Delhi High Court had made mistakes in passing the judgement of the decree of divorce to the husband. They further contended that the courts shouldn’t have passed the judgement of divorce in favour of the husband. The grounds for divorce were the mental cruelty exercised by the wife towards the husband. The High Court had not taken into account the allegation that was related to the termination of pregnancy where the wife had terminated the pregnancy without the consent of the husband. If the High Court had not taken this allegation into consideration, the decree of divorce couldn’t have passed on the grounds of mental cruelty. They further, in their defence, added that even if the court is considering or taking into account all the allegations and objections made by the husband, these all are part and parcel of the marriage life of a couple. This can’t fall under the provision of mischief of clause (i-a) of subsection (1) of Section 13 of the Act, and the order passed by the Trial Court and the Delhi High Court needs to be revoked or set aside.

The counsel had further claimed relief for the appellant. The relief was being claimed on the fact that the respondent had married again and this act of marriage was done before the period of filing for special leave to the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Not only this a child was to be born from the said wedlock.

Respondent  

The respondent contended that the Trial Court, after taking into consideration all the evidence presented by both parties, came to the conclusion that considering the acts that had been exercised by the wife towards the respondent and his family, it simply constituted acts of mental cruelty. Keeping this in mind, the Trial Court had allowed the claim of the husband. The High Court was of the opinion that even taking into account all the evidence, except the illegal termination of pregnancy by the wife without the consent of the husband, considered all the other acts on record that constituted mental cruelty. They, in addition to this, contended whether the appellant had a right to file an appeal under Article 136 of the Indian Constitution. 

Earlier, an allegation had been made by the wife against the husband with regard to his remarriage, and to answer this, the counsel contended that when the decree of divorce was passed by the Trial Court. At that time, the husband didn’t remarry. But later on, when this decree of divorce was confirmed by the High Court the husband had married another person. They further argued that the wife, on the ground of technicality cannot argue that the husband should have waited for the period of filing special leave to expire.

Legal aspects involved in Suman Kapur vs. Sudhir Kapur (2009)

Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act

Section 13(1) of the Act provides the grounds for divorce in the Hindu Marriage. It mentions that in any marriage that has taken place before or after the enactment of the Act, either the husband or the wife can file for divorce, and the same can be dissolved by granting the decree of divorce to the concerned parties as per the provisions mentioned under Section 13 of the Act.  

Section 13(1)(ia) of the Act states cruelty as one of the grounds for divorce. Any type or form of cruel treatment by one’s spouse towards the other has been provided as a ground for divorce. Cruelty has been considered a ground for divorce after the amendment of the Act in the year 1976, but before this, cruelty was not even taken into account as the ground for divorce. Cruelty can be defined as one person’s behaviour, act, and attitude toward marital duties, responsibilities, and obligations. As it has been said, cruelty can be of two forms: physical cruelty and mental cruelty. Physical cruelty constitutes causing physical harm or torture towards one partner.

On the other hand, it cannot be properly said as to what acts would constitute mental cruelty. For over a long period of time, the grief, pain and disappointment the spouse faces by the actions of the other spouse can be considered as an act of mental cruelty, or it would constitute mental cruelty. Cruelty is also mentioned under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code as an offence. 

Section 13(1)(ib) of the Act states desertion as one of the grounds for divorce in the Hindu Marriage. Desertion simply means when either spouse has abandoned the other spouse without any reasonable cause. There are two criteria that must exist to constitute the offence of desertion: there has been an actual break, and there is no more willingness left to stay together and continue the marriage. So similarly, there are two criteria that are required in the case of a deserted spouse: there has been no agreement related to the above-mentioned parties, and there is no proper legal reason for the spouse to leave the other partner. 

Article 136 of the Constitution 

Special leave to appeal by the Supreme Court is covered under Article 136 of the Constitution. This Article grants the Supreme Court the power to allow special leave petitions. This power is exercised by the Hon’ble Supreme Court under circumstances where a substantial question of law arises. The court must apply this power when there has been a case of injustice or justice has been used in just a way that is unjust and improper according to the law. It is the petitioner who presents the facts before the Supreme Court, and on the basis of that, the special leave petition is granted. The petitioner shouldn’t present facts that are unjust and improper, and the facts should be such that they don’t mislead the Supreme Court while granting the appeal. If the court becomes aware that the petitioner has submitted improper or misleading facts, it has the power to revoke the appeal granted to the petitioner. There are two stages in Article 136:

• First, the court decides whether or not the special leave petition should be granted to the petitioner. This decision is taken by the court while it is hearing the facts that are submitted by the petitioner. 
• Secondly, if the court is of the view that the appeal should be granted to the petitioner, it will exercise its appellate jurisdiction in deciding the case. While it exercises this power, the court can alter, modify, or affirm the judgement passed by the lower court.  

Judgement of the case

The Supreme Court ruled in this case that it does not find any basis or valid reason to interfere with the orders passed by both the Trial Court and the High Court. As the Supreme Court was of the opinion that the order passed by both the courts was right and the Supreme Court had affirmed the same order, no relief in regard to the reversal of the divorce could be claimed by the wife. The Supreme Court upheld the decree of divorce passed by the concerned court. Regarding the question of remarriage by the husband before the expiry of the period stipulated for filing special leave to appeal in the Hon’ble Supreme Court by the wife is concerned, the court held that the husband shouldn’t have entered into remarriage. 

The Supreme Court has disposed of the appeal made by the appellant and further directed the husband to pay a sum of Rs. 5 lakhs as compensation to the wife. This compensation was in relation to the husband’s remarriage.  

Rationale behind the judgement

The Supreme Court was of the opinion that the abortion that had taken place required the permission of the husband during the time of abortion. The abortion led to the cruelty. When an abortion takes place without the permission or consent of the spouse, it amounts to mental cruelty, and this is considered as the ground for divorce under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Act. The court ruled that aborting without the consent of the husband amounted to mental cruelty, and the wife had shown no sympathy towards the husband. This is considered as a ground for divorce under this case. 

Physical violence is not only the necessary factor or component to constitute lawful remorselessness. The acts of any spouse that amount to any wrongdoing and the same spouse doesn’t feel sorry for their actions can be considered as a valid point for divorce. 

Relevant judgements referred to in the case

Various judgements had been referred to in this case by the Supreme Court regarding mental cruelty. Some of them are discussed below:

Sirajmohmedkhan Janmohamadkhan vs. Hafizunnisa Yasinkhan & Anr (1981)

In this case, the respondent, who is the wife of the appellant, had filed a suit of maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The maintenance was claimed on the grounds that the appellant had failed to fulfil his marital duties and obligations and there had been wilful neglect on his part. She further established before the court that she was not treated properly by the appellant and was thrown out of the house by her husband. The wife had refused to further continue living with her husband as it had been established before the court that the husband was impotent. On this ground, she refused to live with him and added that this amounted to torture, and the husband was not able to discharge his marital duties. The main issue that was raised in this case was that as the husband is impotent, can this be treated as the only ground for maintenance for the wife, which she was seeking from the husband? The Supreme Court held that as it has been proved that the husband is impotent and is not able to perform his marital duties, this would not only amount to cruelty, but it would consist of both mental and legal cruelty. This ground in itself is sufficient to seek maintenance from the husband. 

The Supreme Court referred to this particular case in Suman Kapur’s case, highlighting the concept of legal cruelty. It was stated in this case to constitute legal cruelty. It is not necessary that physical violence should have occurred. The basis and idea of legal cruelty keep on changing as per the changes in society, concepts, and standard of living. When there is total disregard by the husband towards the marital obligations, it leads to legal cruelty. 

Shobha Rani vs. Madhukar Reddi (1987)

In this particular case, the mother-in-law was continuously demanding money from the wife; because of this, the wife ended up filing for divorce on the grounds of cruelty. However, the lower court rejected her case, mentioning that she had failed to establish and submit the proof of harassment in the court exercised by the mother-in-law towards her. The Supreme Court mentioned that the evidence that was submitted by the wife in support of her claims was sufficient to prove her claims. The Hon’ble Supreme Court had granted divorce to the wife on the grounds of cruelty under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act. The concerned court had failed to apply the concept of cruelty to the cases of matrimonial relations. The court further added to this point that if there is an absence of intention in the case of cruelty with regard to matrimonial relations, it doesn’t really matter or bring about any difference. The court ordered the dissolution of the marriage. 

The Supreme Court referred to this particular case in Suman Kapur’s case highlighting the concept of cruelty. The term cruelty has not been properly defined under the Hindu Marriage Act. The term cruelty has been mentioned under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Act, wherein it has been referred to in regard to the matrimonial relationships and the attitude, behaviour, and acts with respect to the same. Cruelty is either mental or physical. It is not necessary that it should be intentional but it can be unintentional even. If there was no intention, it doesn’t mean the act of cruelty has not happened. Mens rea is not necessary to constitute an act of cruelty. 

Analysis of the case 

The Supreme Court has defined mental cruelty in this particular case. It has been added that mental cruelty is not necessarily intentional; it can even be unintentional. In cases of cruelty, all the things should be considered related to marital relations, especially when the act of cruelty is constituted of non-violent behaviour. In this regard, all the accusations, allegations, complaints, etc, should be taken into account. The court should consider all the fights and incidents that have taken place between the partners. 

Also, not only the social condition of the parties be looked into, but other important factors like the physical and mental condition of the partners and the kind of influence or impact they have on each other. Mental cruelty, as per the court, can be defined as when one partner causes such mental pain and hurt to the other partner by their acts and makes it impossible for them to live together. If it is mental cruelty, the court should first look into the aspect of what kind of cruel act had been done by the partner towards the other and what kind of impact or suffering one is having from that act. It is not important if the mental cruelty is being caused because the intention behind it was to cause harm to the health of the partner. It can be of such a nature that the partner is suffering from mental pain. In several cases of mental cruelty, it becomes difficult to establish mental cruelty by the evidence. The court should go through the facts and circumstances properly before passing their verdict. 

In the case of Ram Bai vs. Jagdish Prasad Yadav (2010) the Chattisgarh High Court referred to the case of Suman Kapur on the issue of a second marriage that was entered by the husband. The court had observed that when the decree of divorce was passed by the Trial Court, the husband didn’t remarry. But later on, when this decree of divorce was confirmed by the High Court the husband had married another person. They further argued that the wife, on the ground of technicality, cannot argue that the husband should have waited for the period of filing special leave to expire.

In the case of Vishwanath Agrawal vs. Sarla Vishwanath Agrawal (2012), the Supreme Court referred to the case of Suman Kapur on the matter where the wife had sent a notice to the husband through her advocate mentioning that the husband had a second wife in America whose identity was not aware of. The wife had made this allegation simply on the fact that in the income tax return of the husband, he had mentioned a Social Security Number of the wife but apparently which did not belong to his wife. It belonged to some American lady. The husband in his defence added that it had been a typographical error on the part of the husband. The High Court here had highlighted that the wife had gone to such an extent where she was just making such serious accusations against her own husband. The Supreme Court weighed this same judgement in the case of Vishwanath Agrawal. 

In the cases of cruelty, to establish the act of cruelty against one’s partner or family, it is not important that the violence should have taken place. In this case, it has been clearly seen that the wife was ignoring her marital duties and was only concerned about her career. When the wife had undergone an abortion without the consent of the husband, she completely deprived the husband of the ultimate joy of fatherhood. It should be taken into account that the wife had undergone an abortion two times, and when she had been pregnant the last time she said it was a miscarriage, the wife kept on giving excuses. The court should take into account all the aspects of cruelty while deciding a case.

It should be noted that the concept of cruelty had evolved over the period of time, and in this case, when the wife was depriving the husband of the joy of fatherhood, her acts constituted mental cruelty. Some would consider it common to have fights in a marital relationship but on the same point love, affection, and impotence to marital obligations and relations are equally important. No one is saying that women should not be concerned with their career or give importance to it but the simple point is that giving undivided attention to the career while ignoring the marital relationship is completely wrong. 

Conclusion 

The act of the wife terminating the pregnancy without the knowledge and consent of the husband constitutes mental cruelty and was considered as a ground of divorce, and the husband was entitled to the same on the mentioned basis. It is not necessary that the act of cruelty must be intentional, it can be unintentional even. Cruelty is an act done by one partner towards the other partner or its family members that causes apprehension of danger. It is not necessary that there must be some physical harm to constitute the act of cruelty. The concept of cruelty is always different and keeps changing as per the given conditions, the standard of living, and the surroundings of the parties. It cannot be the same in every case. It keeps evolving with time and social advancements. 

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

How many types of cruelty are there?

There are two types of cruelty, one being mental cruelty and the other being physical cruelty. 

What is the prescribed punishment for mental cruelty in law?

Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code mentions the punishment for cruelty, which is imprisonment for up to 3 years and the accused shall be liable for fines as well. This particular section covers both the physical and mental harm that a married woman faces from her husband and in-laws. 

Whether the intention is a necessary element to constitute cruelty?

Cruelty is of such a nature that it becomes impossible for the parties to live together. It can be intentional or unintentional.

What are the established grounds under which the court can use discretionary power under Article 136 of the Constitution to grant a Special Leave petition?

The Supreme Court can use the discretionary power under Article 136 of the Constitution to grant a Special Leave petition when, in case, a substantial question of law has arisen.

References

• https://blog.ipleaders.in/analysis-of-section-13-of-hindu-marriage-act-1955/
• https://blog.ipleaders.in/article-136-of-the-indian-constitution/#:~:text=Article%20136%20only%20applies%20to,court%20by%20giving%20improper%20facts.