In which of the following cases, the Supreme Court held that "Mens rea is not an essential element of…

In Suman Kapur v Sudhir Kapur (2009) the Supreme Court, dealing with cruelty as a ground of divorce under section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, said that mens rea is not a necessary element of cruelty: conduct may amount to cruelty even without an intention to be cruel. The answer is "Suman Kapur v. Sudhir Kapur, AIR 2009 SC 589". Russell v Russell (1897) is the English case that required danger to life, limb or health for legal cruelty, Sarla Mudgal dealt with conversion and bigamy, and Chandra Mohini did not lay down this proposition.