- Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 - Case law - Suman Kapur vs Sudhir Kapur.
- Bench: C.K. Thakker, D.K. Jain
Facts:
- The appellant Suman Kapur is the wife of the respondent, Sudhir Kapur. The appellant and the respondent were childhood friends and they studied together in the same school. Afterwards, they decided to marry and the marriage was inter-caste marriage.
- The appellant was a scientist; she was working in the Department of Bio-Chemistry in the All India Institute of Medical Sciences. She became pregnant a month after her marriage in 1984. However, due to the dangerous radiation in the laboratory, the foetus was aborted without the consent of the husband.
- She became pregnant again in 1985. However, an acute kidney infection led her to abort the baby without her husband's consent.
- She became pregnant again in 1989 and this time also aborted her womb without her husband's consent.
- Respondent then took action under section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act for getting a divorce from the appellant.
Issues:
- Whether a woman's act of undergoing abortion to terminate a pregnancy without the consent of her spouse amounts to mental cruelty?
- Whether a husband is entitled to seek divorce from the wife on the above ground?
Contentions of the Appellant:
- Appellant claims 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.
- She conceived again in 1985; 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. She claimed that even the second pregnancy was terminated with the knowledge and consent of the respondent-husband.
- According to the appellant, she became pregnant in 1989 for the third time, but she suffered natural abortion on account of having a congenitally small uterus and thus was prone to recurrent miscarriages.
- 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.
Contentions of the Respondent:
- 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.
Background:
- The respondent-husband, filed a case in the Court of Additional District Judge, Delhi under Section 13(1)(ia) and (ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for getting divorce from the appellant-wife. Two grounds were taken by the respondent-husband in the said petition, i.e. (i) cruelty and (ii) desertion. On both the grounds, the respondent- husband was entitled to a decree of divorce.
- The trial Court after hearing the parties held that the husband was not entitled to a decree of divorce on the ground that the wife had deserted the husband. The trial Court, however, held that the case was covered by mental cruelty which was shown by the wife towards the husband and the husband was entitled to a decree of divorce on that ground.
- The High Court again appreciated the evidence on record and confirmed the decree of divorce passed by the trial Court. Accordingly, the decree of divorce passed by the trial Court was confirmed by the High Court.
Judgment:
- The apex court upheld the plea of Sudhir Kapur that he was entitled to seek divorce under the Hindu Marriage Act, as his wife had undergone three abortions without his consent.
- A woman's act of undergoing abortion to terminate pregnancy without the consent of her spouse amounts to mental cruelty and her husband is entitled to seek divorce on this ground, supreme court ruled.
- The apex court after persuing the records and citing a number of judicial rulings said that the actions of Suman amounted to mental cruelty and the husband was entitled to a decree of divorce. However, since Sudheer married another woman during the pendancy of the appeal, the Apex court directed him to pay a compensation of Rs. 5 Lakhs to Suman.
