Under Indian matrimonial law, cruelty is recognized as one of the grounds for divorce. This ground is particularly significant because it encompasses a broad range of behaviors that constitute cruelty which is both physical and mental in nature. Cruelty, as a legal concept, has evolved over time through judicial interpretations in the precedents set by the Indian Courts, reflecting changing societal behavior, norms and values. It is generally described as conduct of such a character as to have reasonable apprehension of such danger. In this article we provide a detailed examination of cruelty as a ground for divorce under Indian laws, illustrated further by relevant case laws.
Legal Framework: Cruelty as a Ground for Divorce
In India, the ground of cruelty is enshrined under various personal laws governing marriages. For instance:
- Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, provides for divorce on the ground of cruelty.
- U/s 2 (viii) of Dissolution of Muslim Marriage Act, 1939, cruelty is recognized as a ground for dissolution of marriage.
- The Indian Divorce Act, 1869, applicable to Christians, also allows for divorce on grounds of cruelty u/s 10 (1) (x)
Under the secular law The Special Marriage Act, 1954 Section 27 (1)(d), cruelty is also a ground for divorce.
These legal frameworks provide for divorce when one spouse has been subjected to cruelty by the other.
Definition and Scope of Cruelty
In Halsbury’s Laws of England, 3rd Ed, Vol 12, “The legal conception of cruelty, which is not defined by statute, is generally described as conduct of such a character as to have caused danger to life, limb or health (bodily or mental), or as to give rise to a reasonable apprehension of such danger. To be a ground of divorce the treatment with cruelty since the celebration of marriage, but revelation after marriage of deception before it may be cruelty where it is aggravated by circumstances.”
In Indian context as defined in Savitri Pandey (2002)2 S 73 “Cruelty postulates a treatment of one spouse towards the other as to cause reasonable apprehension in the mind of the latter that it would be harmful or injurious for him or her to live with the former. Such cruelty may be physical or mental. However, it should not be decided on the basis of the sensitivity of the petitioner. It has to be judged on the basis of course of conduct which would, in general, be dangerous for a spouse to live with the other.”
With these definitions and the precedents of Indian courts, it is apparent that to constitute cruelty,
i. It need not be only physical, but also mental cruelty
ii. It varies from individual to individual
iii. It depends upon the social and economic status to which person belongs to
iv. There must be some grave or weighty matters to constitute cruelty
v. The conduct complained of must be serious and higher than the ordinary wear and tear of married life
In the case of Samar Ghosh v. Jaya Ghosh AIRONLINE 2007 SC 347, the Supreme Court provided a detailed exposition of what constitutes mental cruelty.
“The instances indicated in the succeeding paragraphs are only illustrative and not exhaustive.
(i) On consideration of complete matrimonial life of the parties, acute mental pain, agony and suffering as would not make possible for the parties to live with each other could come within the broad parameters of mental cruelty.
(ii) On comprehensive appraisal of the entire matrimonial life of the parties, it becomes abundantly clear that situation is such that the wronged party cannot reasonably be asked to put up with such conduct and continue to live with other party.
(iii) Mere coldness or lack of affection cannot amount to cruelty, frequent rudeness of language, petulance of manner, indifference and neglect may reach such a degree that it makes the married life for the other spouse absolutely intolerable.
(iv) Mental cruelty is a state of mind. The feeling of deep anguish, disappointment, frustration in one spouse caused by the conduct of other for a long time may lead to mental cruelty.
(v) A sustained course of abusive and humiliating treatment calculated to torture, discommode or render miserable life of the spouse.
(vi) Sustained unjustifiable conduct and behaviour of one spouse actually affecting physical and mental health of the other spouse. The treatment complained of and the resultant danger or apprehension must be very grave, substantial and weighty.
(vii) Sustained reprehensible conduct, studied neglect, indifference or total departure from the normal standard of conjugal kindness causing injury to mental health or deriving sadistic pleasure can also amount to mental cruelty.
(viii) The conduct must be much more than jealousy, selfishness, possessiveness, which causes unhappiness and dissatisfaction and emotional upset may not be a ground for grant of divorce on the ground of mental cruelty.
(ix) Mere trivial irritations, quarrels, normal wear and tear of the married life which happens in day to day life would not be adequate for grant of divorce on the ground of mental cruelty.
(x) The married life should be reviewed as a whole and a few isolated instances over a period of years will not amount to cruelty. The ill-conduct must be persistent for a fairly lengthy period, where the relationship has deteriorated to an extent that because of the acts and behaviour of a spouse, the wronged party finds it extremely difficult to live with the other party any longer, may amount to mental cruelty.
(xi) If a husband submits himself for an operation of sterilization without medical reasons and without the consent or knowledge of his wife and similarly if the wife undergoes vasectomy or abortion without medical reason or without the consent or knowledge of her husband, such an act of the spouse may lead to mental cruelty.
(xii) Unilateral decision of refusal to have intercourse for a considerable period without there being any physical incapacity or valid reason may amount to mental cruelty.
(xiii) Unilateral decision of either husband or wife after marriage not to have a child from the marriage may amount to cruelty.
(xiv) Where there has been a long period of continuous separation, it may fairly be concluded that the matrimonial bond is beyond repair. The marriage becomes a fiction though supported by a legal tie. By refusing to sever that tie, the law in such cases, does not serve the sanctity of marriage; on the contrary, it shows scant regard for the feelings and emotions of the parties. In such situations, it may lead to mental cruelty.”
Judicial Interpretations of Cruelty
Over the years, Indian courts have developed a rich jurisprudence surrounding the concept of cruelty. Several cases illustrate the evolving understanding of this ground for divorce:
1. Krishna Sarvadhikari v Alok Ranjan Sarvadhikari AIR 1985 Cal 431
The legal concept of cruelty comprises two distinct elements – firstly, the ill treatment and, secondly, the resultant danger or apprehension therefrom.. The expression of cruelty comprehends both physical and mental cruelty. Physical temperament, standard of living and culture of the spouses, social ideas and all other relevant circumstances have bearing on the question whether the acts and conduct complained of, amount to the matrimonial offense of cruelty. Conduct alleged has to be judged with reference to the victim’s capacity for endurance. Actual intention on the part of one spouse to injure the other is not an essential factor, though in doubtful cases the state of mind of the offending spouse would be material and may be crucial.
2. Shobha Rani v Madhukar Reddi AIR 1988 SC 121
But it is universally accepted that it is not possible to define cruelty. For any attempt on it will lead to auto limitation and restrictive operation of the concept. As the modern society becomes more complex, so emerges the techniques and means inflicting hardship and strain in marital life. So the concept about cruelty has been left free and unrestricted. It may be argued that this has led to unpredictability and speculation as to what act or omission may amount to cruelty. The court has to draw inference and decide on the basis of preponderance of probability having regard to the nature of conduct of the other spouse and its impact on the complaining spouse in the context of their standard of life.
There is no such rule that there should be direct evidence of harassment or of the intention to treat with cruelty so as to establish the allegations of cruelty. The court may draw inference and decide on basis of preponderance of probabilities.
3. Naveen Kohli v Neelu Kohli (2006) DMC 489 (SC)
Under some peculiar circumstance, continuance of the marital alliance itself may amount to cruelty. Such a view has been taken by the three Judge Bench of the Apex Court in this case. The Apex Court has recommended incorporation of “irretrievable breakdown of marriage” as a ground to grant divorce.
Physical Cruelty and Its Implications
Physical cruelty is a straightforward ground to seek remedy under matrimonial law. While mental cruelty forms a significant part of the jurisprudence on divorce, physical cruelty remains a straightforward ground. Courts have consistently held that any form of physical violence by one spouse toward the other, including assaults, beatings, or threats of harm, constitutes physical cruelty and is sufficient for granting divorce.
In Smt. A.P. Marry vs K.G. Raghawan AIR 1979 MP 40, the Supreme Court held that a single act of violence may come under the mischief of Section 27(1)(d) of Special Marriage Act, 1954 within the meaning of the words ‘has treated with cruelty’ provided the violence is of a grievous and inexcusable nature.
Some of acts of Physical Cruelty as observed by the courts are
- Danger to life, limb or health
- Ill-treatment by persons other than husband (relatives of the husband)
- Ill-treatment by the wife – not only husband, her in-laws
- When it is only a single act of physical cruelty, it has to be of a serious nature
- Occasional beating or even threats of violence
- Restriction on movements of the petitioner
- Unnatural offenses or practices or perversions
- Prolonged refusal to have sexual intercourse
- Excessive demand of sex
- Pouring kerosene or acid or any such dangerous substance
Mental Cruelty and Its Implications
Referring to the judgment S Hammantha Rao v S Ramani (1999) I DMC 628 (SC) – “Mental cruelty can broadly be defined as that conduct which inflicts upon the other party such mental pain and suffering as would make it not possible for that party to live with the other. Mental cruelty must be of such nature that the parties cannot reasonably be expected to live together. The situation must be such that the wronged party cannot reasonably be asked to put up with such conduct and continue to live with the other party.
Some of acts of Mental Cruelty as observed by the courts are
- Abortion without consent
- Cruelty to children
- False accusation
- Giving birth to an illegitimate child
- False or unfounded allegation of adultery
- Nagging, abusiveness and jealousy, irritating temper, quarrelsome mentality and foul tongue
- Negligence or intentional omission to protect the spouse
- Conduct unaccompanied by actual violence
- To make the spouse extremely uncomfortable
- Depriving the spouse of normal cohabitation
Evidentiary Challenges in Proving Cruelty
There is no rule to provide strict proof of cruelty. Courts also have held that the inference of physical and mental cruelty can be made from facts and circumstances rather than requiring direct evidence. The definition of cruelty itself is subjective to the individual’s circumstances, the evidence also involves subjective experiences and emotions. Having a recorded videos, transcript of messages, medical records, electronic conversations, etc give an added advantage on behalf of the petitioner while proving the cruelty.
For instance, in Shobha Rani v Madhukar Reddi AIR 1988 1 SCC 105 it was decided that, “There is no such rule that there should be direct evidence of harassment or of the intention to treat with cruelty so as to establish the allegations of cruelty. The court may draw inference and decide on basis of preponderance of probabilities.”
Conclusion
Cruelty as a ground for divorce in India has evolved from a narrow concept of physical violence to a more comprehensive understanding that includes mental cruelty. The concept of cruelty and its effects varies from individual to individual; also depending upon the social and economic status to which such person belongs. The word cruelty as a matrimonial offense has been used in its ordinary sense. It has no esoteric or artificial meaning. However the conduct complained of must be serious and higher than the ordinary wear and tear of married life. Cruelty has to be pleaded clearly with some instances and then the same has to be established by evidence. If not specifically pleaded, no amount of evidence can be looked into.
