In a landmark ruling, the Delhi High Court held that repeated false allegations, police harassment, and deliberate obstruction of a father’s relationship with his child amount to mental cruelty. The Court dissolved the marriage of celebrity chef Kunal Kapur, declaring that a husband’s dignity and peace of mind deserve equal legal protection.
NEW DELHI: Bringing closure to a long-drawn marital dispute, the Delhi High Court has granted Chef Kunal Kapur a divorce from his wife Ekta Kapur, setting aside the Family Court’s 2018 order that had denied him relief. A Bench of Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Neena Bansal Krishna held that false dowry and infidelity allegations, public humiliation, and deprivation of a father’s emotional access to his child constituted mental cruelty under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
The couple married on April 20 2008, and a son was born on February 26 2012. Soon after marriage, differences surfaced. The husband alleged that his wife frequently abused and insulted him and his parents, hurled crockery, and called the police to their home. Despite his growing fame after appearing on “MasterChef India”, she allegedly threatened to defame him in the media and once slapped him before a shoot
A December 2013 incident in which she called the PCR 100 after an altercation, later admitting to police that she had acted “in anger “was cited as a turning point. The husband finally left the shared home in May 2015 and sought divorce on grounds of cruelty.
The Family Court dismissed the petition, terming the disputes “normal wear and tear of marriage.” It held that arguments over pizza orders, kitchen quarrels, or verbal fights did not constitute cruelty and treated the video evidence as provocation-driven.
On re-evaluating, the Delhi High Court found multiple acts amounting to cruelty:
False Dowry & Luxury-Demand Allegations: The wife’s claims that ₹40 lakh was spent on dowry and gifts of gold and cars were unsupported by income or tax records; no 498-A complaint was ever filed. Citing K. Srinivas v. K. Sunita (2014) and Ravi Kumar v. Julmidevi (2010), the Court ruled that “unsubstantiated dowry accusations damage reputation and equal mental cruelty”.
Disrespect & Abuse Toward In-Laws: Neighbour-witnesses testified to frequent loud fights requiring their intervention; the Court said the Family Court had erred by ignoring this corroboration.
Lavish-Lifestyle Pressure: Evidence showed the wife quit her job, demanded luxuries, and blamed her husband for not fulfilling them and the Court found to be cruel financial and emotional strain.
False Allegations of Infidelity: His wife accused Kunal of “flirtatious behaviour” and “unnatural sexual demands” but produced no proof; such wild, reputation-tarnishing claims were declared cruelty following Vijay Kumar Ramchandra Bhate v. Neela Bhate (2003).
Public Humiliation & Police Misuse: In 2016, she barged into Yash Raj Studios during his shoot, creating a scene that forced him to file an FIR (Aboli PS, Mumbai) and obtain a restraint order “reckless, defamatory and humiliating conduct amounting to cruelty,” the Court held
Physical Abuse Caught on Video: Video, reviewed with audio, showed her slapping him, breaking a mirror, and screaming foul language (“kutta”, “pagal”) in front of their crying child. The Court said the scene “hurt the conscience” of the Bench and proved grave cruelty
Parental Alienation: After 2015, she denied him access to their son despite taking financial support. Citing Prabin Gopal v. Meghna, the Bench ruled that denying a parent love and companionship of a child is psychological cruelty.
“False allegations, public humiliation, and emotional deprivation strike at the foundation of marriage. Such conduct amounts to cruelty.”
The judges concluded that the wife’s behaviour was “devoid of dignity and empathy” and that “no spouse should be compelled to live enduring such agony.”
Explanatory Table of All Laws and Sections in This Case
| Law / Section | Provision / Meaning | Relevance in the Case |
| Section 13(1)(ia), HMA 1955 | Divorce on ground of cruelty. | Main relief granted |
| Section 19, Family Courts Act 1984 | Appeal provision | Enabled High Court jurisdiction |
| Samar Ghosh v. Jaya Ghosh (2007) | Illustrative scope of mental cruelty | Applied as guiding test |
| K. Srinivas v. K. Sunita (2014) | False dowry allegations = cruelty SC case illustrating examples of mental cruelty. | Applied to facts |
| Vijay Kumar Bhate (2003) | False infidelity charge = cruelty | Cited for reputation damage |
| Prabin Gopal v. Meghna (2021 Ker HC) | Denial of fatherhood = mental cruelty | Adopted by Bench |
Case Title: Kunal Kapur v. Ekta Kapur
Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Neena Bansal Krishna
Details
- Court: Delhi High Court
- Case Number: MAT.APP.(F.C.) 321/2018
- Originating Case: HMA Petition No. — Family Court (New Delhi)
- Date of Judgment: April 2, 2024
- Statutory References:
- Hindu Marriage Act 1955 (S13(1)(ia))
- Family Courts Act 1984 (S19)
- Indian Evidence Act 65B
- High Court Judgment:
- The Court noted that the parties had lived separately since 2015, and there was no possibility of reconciliation.
- The wife’s baseless accusations of dowry demands and infidelity were held to be unfounded and reputation-damaging, thereby amounting to mental cruelty under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
- Calling the police without cause and creating a scene at the husband’s workplace were held to be reckless, defamatory, and humiliating acts, causing deep emotional trauma.
- The Court relied on video evidence showing the wife slapping the husband, using foul language (“kutta”, “pagal”), and acting violently in front of their child declaring it grave physical and emotional cruelty.
- By denying the father access to his son despite accepting monetary support, the wife inflicted psychological cruelty.
- Her claims of ₹40 lakh dowry and demands for cars/jewellery were found unsubstantiated no evidence, no 498-A complaint, and inconsistent. Such allegations were made to malign the husband’s image.
- Alleging that the husband had “flirtatious texts and affairs” without proof was declared a serious assault on reputation, citing Vijay Kumar Bhate v. Neela Bhate (2003).
- The High Court held that the Family Court erred by trivializing serious conduct as “wear and tear of marriage” and failing to appreciate the pattern of cruelty established through witnesses, video, and emails.
- The Bench allowed the appeal, set aside the Family Court’s 2018 judgment, and granted divorce to Kunal Kapur under Section 13(1)(ia) HMA, observing that no spouse should be forced to live in such agony.
Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the Indian courts and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of “ShoneeKapoor.com” or its affiliates. This article is intended for informational and educational purposes only. The content provided is not legal advice, and viewers should not act upon this information without seeking professional counsel. Viewer discretion is advised