Delhi High Court on 2.04.2024 granted divorce to celebrity Chef Kunal Kapur, who gained fame after Television Show ‘Master Chef’ in 2010. From police threats to physical assault, several such detailed instances prompted the Division Bench of Hon’ble Justices Suresh Kumar Kait and Neena Bansal Krishna to reverse the Family Court’s denial and the High Court granted divorce to Chef Kunal.
Brief Facts
Chef Kunal Kapur got married on 20.04.2008 as per Hindu rites and a baby boy was born out of the said wedlock on 26.02.2012. While hinting at various instances of cruelty at the hands of his wife, Chef Kunal applied for divorce.
The Family Court dismissed Chef Kunal Kapur’s petition under Section 13(1) (ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (‘HMA’) on 1.10.2018. The same was challenged through the instant appeal under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984.
Contentions of the Petitioner
Chef Kunal stated that he met the respondent wife through a matrimonial website and set forth a precondition to stay with his parents to take care of them, which she had agreed. Several instances of the wife pressurizing Chef Kunal for a luxurious life were stated. She even voluntarily quit her job claiming it to be her husband’s duty to maintain her, sitting idly and isolated in her bedroom and misbehaving with him and his family members. He further submitted about taking his wife out on international and domestic trips to make her happy, which would end with the wife souring the entire trip with her inappropriate behavior. He even mentioned enrolling in a three day inter-personal development course in 2009, but the wife did not mend her ways.
Chef Kunal also mentioned his selection in Television Show ‘Master Chef’ in 2010 which led to the wife constantly humiliating him in public, calling police at matrimonial home, threatening of false criminal cases and barging into Yash Raj Studios while he was shooting for ‘Master Chef’ in Mumbai, throwing tantrums and creating scenes in front of his neighbours and society members. She even pretended to call the police, and later disclosed that she was trying to set him straight. Even after the birth of the child, she would go out uninformed leaving behind the child with the in-laws. Another instance of calling PCR after a fight, and then admitting of calling the PCR in a fit of anger was mentioned, which ended with PCR leaving without registering a case, making Chef Kunal and his family suffer loss of reputation due to his wife’s conduct.
After more such similar instances including events of wife hitting him and his family members, Chef Kunal filed a petition under Section 13(1)(ia) of HMA to seek divorce.
Contentions of the Respondent
His wife denied all the allegations while stating that Chef Kunal along with his parents enacted a drama to get rid of her either by forcing her to commit suicide or by taking divorce. She even claimed that within a few weeks of marriage, she was made to feel like an outsider, who could not fit into Chef Kunal and his parents’ expectations. She further mentioned about demands made by Chef Kunal for articles and jewellery to be given in marriage.
Observations of the Court
Since the Family Court observed about Chef Kunal’s failure to establish cruelty, even dismissing the video of wife hitting him, holding that she was driven to the stage of losing temper, the High Court referred to Samar Ghosh Vs. Jaya Ghosh, 2007 Latest Caselaw 273 SC wherein the Supreme Court elaborated the scope of ‘Cruelty’ which differs from person to person.
Coming to the instant case, the Court took note of the wife’s humble background who claimed of having spent around Rs 40 lakhs in their extravagant wedding, but failed to bring any Income Tax receipts or bills to prove the said expenses. While hinting at the absence of any complaint for proceedings under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, the Court cited K. Srinivas Vs. K. Sunita, 2014 Latest Caselaw 716 SC and further cases to press upon unsubstantiated allegations amounting to mental cruelty.
The Court acknowledged that “within 2 years of marriage, the appellant has established himself as a Celebrity Chef which is a reflection of his hard work and determination which would not have been possible had he been one who was dependent on his spouse or in-laws for his necessities.” The Court held it to be mere allegations by the wife which amounts to cruelty. The Court went on to observe that “Though marital discords are an inevitable part and parcel of every marriage, however, when such conflicts take the form of disrespect and inconsideration towards their spouse, the marriage itself loses its sanctity.”
The Court also took note of the e-mail conversation with Chef Kunal’s wife where she acknowledged her in-laws’ love, making her feel like her own home, as against the allegations of taunts. Considering the neighbours’ statement who had to intervene at various instances, the Court opined that the Family Court erred in not appreciating such witnesses on the whole.
The Court further remarked that “Though in a marriage, a woman cannot be expected to work for the whole house-hold, however, when a woman takes up the responsibilities of the house out of her free will, she does so out of sheer love for her family and no price can be put on it.” The Court further cited increased responsibilities of a mother after giving birth stated that “in the present case, blaming the spouse for her personal failure is only perceived as a tactic to guilt the husband into fulfilling her unreasonable monetary demands, causing him great mental agony” and regarded such a conduct amounting to Cruelty.
The Court further highlighted allegations of Chef Kunal’s infidelity and extra-marital relations and making unnatural sexual demands from her, which were not proved by any specific instance, showing that she was only insinuating. The Court cited Vijaykumar Ramchandra Bhate Vs. Neela Vijaykumar Bhate, 2003 Latest Caselaw 673 SC to opine about wild allegations of the wife to disrepute Chef Kunal to get a favourable outcome in Court and remarked that “Such baseless arguments when made about a person who is regularly in the public eye, it has long lasting effects on his reputation and tarnishes his image among his peers”. The Court further pointed at the instance of wife barging into Yash Raj Studios which led Chef Kunal to register an FIR and seek a restraint order against her which was allowed by the Court on 30.01.2017.
While mentioning about the video which was disregarded by the Family Court, the High Court expressed that “ the parties were into an altercation into their room, however the door was open and all the other members of the family, including the small child of the parties, were witnessing it. The respondent is seen shouting and growling upon the husband without even bothering that the infant child of the parties is crying and is seeking their attention. The appellant is seen and heard asking the child to leave the room. In a fit of rage, the respondent is blaming the appellant and his family for their conduct and asking why her belonging have been touched without her permission. In a fit of anger she has used the foul language such like “kutta” and used slang word “pagal”. She is heard threatening the appellant to leave her matrimonial home and once it came to her notice that appellant‟s father was recording the incident, she misbehaved with him and in anger hit the appellant and thereafter, hit herself also shouting “pagal hum main”. She thereafter, called the PCR for assistance. All through the incident, the little child of the parties is seen moving in and out of the room saying “dadu- dadu”.”
The Court remarked that “a prudent spouse, who is highly qualified would find out a way to resolve the differences. Screaming high and using filthy language, even if not directly abusing the spouse, is too harsh to expect for the spouse at the receiving end to accept it.” The Court further said that such incidents would leave a scary impression on the child’s memories of his parents’ behavior.
The Court opined that “though there is no standard set for what amounts to a reasonable reaction to provocations in marital life, such acts of causing physical harm to a person is a reflection of one‟s inability to be in control of their temperaments and amounts to cruelty.”
The Court stated that the parties had been living apart since May 2015 and their son was in wife’s custody, while Chef Kunal provided monetary support for education and other expenses but was not allowed to meet or talk to their son. Commenting on wife complaining about Chef Kunal in front of their child, the Court said that “Such deprivation of company of their son with the malicious intent to create a rift between the father and child, no doubt will put any parent to distress.” The Court cited Prabin Gopal vs Meghna, 2021 Latest Caselaw 12463 Ker in this regard.
Decision of the Court
Looking at the behaviour of the wife towards Chef Kunal in whole being devoid of dignity and empathy, the Court observed that “When such is the nature of one spouse towards the other, it brings disgrace to the very essence of marriage and there exist no possible reason as to why he should be compelled to live while enduring the agony of living together.”
Therefore, the Court allowed the instant appeal and set aside the impugned judgment and granted divorce under Section 13(1) (ia) of HMA.
Case Title: Kunal Kapur vs Ekta Kapur
Case No.: MAT.APP.(F.C.) 321/2018 & CM APPL.26716/2019, 21206/2021 & 3642/2023
Coram: Hon’ble Justice Mr. Suresh Kumar Kait and Hon’ble Justice Ms. Neena Bansal Krishna
Advocates for the Petitioner: In person with Ms. Geeta Luthra, Senior Advocate with Ms. Kamakshi Gupta, Ms. Apoorva Maheshwari & Ms. Anushka Khaitan, Advocates
Advocates for the Respondent: In person with Mr. Sunil Mittal, Senior Advocate with Ms. Zeba Khair & Ms. Ananya Garg, Advs. with respondent in person, Advocate
Read Judgement @LatestLaws.com:
Share this Document :Picture Source :
