MasterChef India judge Kunal Kapur’s plea for divorce over cruelty by wife gets granted by…

On Tuesday, the Delhi High Court granted divorce to celebrity chef Kunal Kapur on the grounds of cruelty committed by his former wife, stating that the woman’s treatment of him was devoid of respect and empathy.
The high court granted Kunal Kapur’s appeal challenging a family court order denying him divorce, ruling that making reckless, slanderous, humiliating, and baseless charges against a spouse in public constitutes cruelty.
“In the light of the aforenoted facts of the present case, we find that the conduct of the respondent (wife) towards the appellant (husband) has been such that it is devoid of dignity and empathy towards him. When such is the nature of one spouse towards the other, it brings disgrace to the very essence of marriage and there exists no possible reason as to why he should be compelled to live while enduring the agony of living together,” a bench of Justices Suresh Kumar Kait and Neena Bansal Krishna stated.
The estranged couple married in April 2008, and their son was born in 2012.
In his plea, Kunal Kapur, a judge on the television show “Master Chef,” accused his wife of disrespecting his parents and humiliating him.
On the other side, the lady accused him of creating false claims in order to mislead the court, claiming that she always sought to interact with her husband as a loving spouse and was faithful to him.
However, she claimed that he kept her in the dark and made up claims to get a divorce.
The court stated that while disagreements are an unavoidable part of any marriage when such disagreements take the shape of disdain and inconsideration for a spouse, the marriage loses its sanctity.

“It is relevant to mention here that within two years of marriage, the appellant has established himself as a celebrity chef, which is a reflection of his hard work and determination. Considering the aforesaid facts, it is only prudent to observe that these are mere allegations made by the respondent to disrepute the appellant in the eyes of the court and such unsubstantiated claims have the effect on one’s reputation and therefore, amount to cruelty,” the bench said.