The Supreme Court has stayed the Delhi High Court’s decision to grant a divorce to celebrity chef Kunal Kapur.
A bench comprising Justices Hrishikesh Roy and SVN Bhatti sought Kapur’s response after his wife moved the apex court against the High Court’s verdict.
While staying the divorce, the Supreme Court referred the case to the Supreme Court Mediation Centre to explore the possibility of an out-of-court settlement. In April, the Delhi High Court had granted divorce to the celebrity chef on the grounds of cruelty by his wife. This decision led to the immediate appeal before the apex court.
The Delhi High Court had observed that Kapur’s wife’s conduct towards him lacked dignity and empathy, falling under the ambit of Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act. The court noted that the family court had erred in not granting Kapur’s plea for divorce. It had examined WhatsApp messages exchanged between the parties and found that Kapur was not allowed to meet or talk to his son.
Before the Supreme Court, Kapur’s wife argued that the High Court’s judgment, delivered six months after it was reserved, violated the Supreme Court’s directions. She further contended that the couple had lived together and gone on vacations after the last alleged act of cruelty. Kapur, in his evidence, had stated that his wife supported and helped him as he gained success in life.
Kapur married in 2008, and a son was born in 2012. He claimed that during their marriage, his wife habitually called the police to threaten him and his family. In September 2016, while he was shooting for MasterChef India at Yash Raj Studios, his wife allegedly barged into the studio with their minor son, causing a disturbance. Consequently, he obtained a restraining order against her.
Kapur also alleged that as he gained public attention, his wife threatened to spread false rumors to the media and file false criminal complaints against him and his parents. On one occasion, she allegedly slapped him just before he left for a shoot.
His wife denied these allegations, stating that she had compromised her professional career to support her family and husband. She added that her in-laws regularly taunted her for having a job instead of doing household work and repeatedly humiliated her for not fitting their conservative definition of an ideal daughter-in-law.
