The Realms of Cruelty in Matrimonial Cases

The Realms of Cruelty in Matrimonial Law

Is it cruelty or ordinary wear and tear of the marriage? Does divorce need black & bluing with a broken bone? Is keeping quiet in the name of Sanskar & Sacrifice the best option? When marriage feels like suffocation, but there is no evidence to show the invisible wounds of mental agony, what can one do? The truth is the cruelest blows in a marriage are the silent ones that shatter the soul without leaving any visible bruises. Opportunely the Indian courts have been acknowledging all kinds of cruelty as a valid ground while deciding the matrimonial cases. 

Cruelty as a Ground for Divorce:

“The marriage be dissolved on the ground that the other party, after the solemnisation of the marriage, treated the petitioner with cruelty” 

Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 – Section 13 (1) (ia)

Special Marriage Act, 1954 – Section 27 (1) (d)

Divorce Act, 1869 – Section 10 (1) (x)

The word ‘Cruelty’ is not defined in the statute but has been evolved to take different dimensions over the years through judicial decisions. Supreme Court judgment on Savitri Pandey Vs Premchandra Pandey (2002) AIR 2002 SUPREME COURT 591,2002(2), SCC 73,2002 defines ‘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.

Hence, it is not just the physical violence but also the mental distress caused through different actions by the spouse are considered to be the grounds to seek matrimonial remedy. Apart from that the depth of cruelty differs from person to person, suggesting to use different parameters considering the social status, overall ambience of the marital life and personality of the petitioner/respondent while judging the dispute between the parties. 

Examples of Cruelty through Judicial Decisions:

Dastane v Dastane AIR 1975 SC 1534

This judgement established that cruelty need not be physical and includes “mental cruelty”. It introduced the crucial test to ascertain the seriousness of cruelty;

• The acts which are alleged to be constituted as cruelty must be proven as per the provisions of Indian Evidence Act and the court must ensure that it is done accordingly.
• The act of respondent must create a reasonable apprehension of actual harm and injury in the mind of the person who alleges cruelty and it must be dangerous for the person to cohabit and reside with the person accused of cruelty.
• The apprehension of threat must be rational and must come from the acts of the accused/ respondent directly.
• There should not be any act on the petitioner’s side showing condonation of cruelty which necessarily implies forgiveness.

Hence, this judgment moved the focus from solely physical harm to the subjective reasonable apprehension to the victim.

Shobha Rani v Madhukar Reddi 1988 AIR 121

This Supreme Court judgment defined cruelty in par with the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 and clarified that demands for dowry and harassment related to it constitute cruelty. The decision emphasised that cruelty is a course of conduct, not necessarily isolated incidents and its severity must be judged by its impact on the victim spouse. 

Hence, this judgement explicitly linked dowry harassment to matrimonial cruelty under matrimonial laws. 

V Bhagat v D Bhagat 1994 AIR 710:

In this case the husband accused the wife of leading an adulterous life and the wife accused the husband of being lunatic and paranoid. The mud slinging went so low that the Apex Court considered that false, baseless and scandalous allegations made in the petition and written statement by one spouse against the other amounts to mental cruelty of such severity that it makes cohabitation impossible and granted divorce without continuing with the trial. 

Hence it recognised that litigation tactics and false accusations within the divorce proceedings themselves can constitute cruelty justifying divorce. 

G V N Kameswara Rao v G Jabilli 2002 AIR 576:

The Apex court in this case focused on the overall conduct between the parties rather than considering isolated incidents. While assessing factors such as the duration of the marital discord, the nature of interactions, and the social implications of the alleged cruelty. Various incidents brought out in the evidence showed that the relationship between the parties was irretrievably broken, and because of the non-cooperation and the hostile attitude of the respondent, the appellant was subjected to serious traumatic experience which the court safely termed as ‘cruelty’ within the purview of Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act.

Hence, the court distinguished between mere incompatibility or trivial disagreements and actions that render the marital relationship intolerable. It underscored that cruelty need not involve threats to life or health but can encompass persistent behaviour that make cohabitation mentally unbearable. 

Naveen Kohli v Neelu Kohli 2006 AIR 1675:

When both the parties could not prove the allegations made on each other of cruelty or adultery, the Supreme Court observed that prolonged litigation throughout which the parties have not cohabited with each other, the increasing animosity between them and lost all hope of reconciliation amounts to irretrievable breakdown of marriage. The divorce was granted accordingly. The court also recommended the Union of India to seriously consider bringing an amendment in the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 to incorporate irretrievable breakdown of marriage as a ground for the grant of divorce.

Hence, the court essentially recognised irretrievable breakdown as a valid ground for divorce, even if not explicitly mentioned in the Matrimonial Laws, when the marriage is beyond repair. 

Samar Ghosh v Jaya Ghosh 2007 AIR 2015:

The Supreme Court provided an exhaustive and highly influential list of instances constituting mental cruelty. Key examples include:

• Persistent refusal of sexual intercourse without justification.
• Unilateral decisions denying parenthood (e.g., abortion without consent).
• Sustained abusive language and insults.
• Habitual humiliation in private or public.
• Forcing the spouse to leave the house 
• Cooking only for self, making the husband eat outside food
• Not visiting or caring for the husband with heart condition which lead to bypass surgery
• Repeated threats to commit suicide or false complaints.
• Total indifference and non-cooperation, making the relationship “dead” emotionally.
• Sustained neglect and refusal to participate in family life.

K Srinivas Rao v D A Deepa 2013 AIR 2176:

Brought about more clarity on settling the cases through mediation where the wife has filed a criminal complaint under Section 498A IPC (Section 85 BNS) against husband and his family members, especially if motivated by malice or to gain advantage in divorce proceedings. In such cases, it constitutes mental cruelty on the husband by the wife. This judgment also cautioned not to let the erring spouse to get out of the clutches of law in the guise of settling the matter through mediation. 

Hence, parties use the Mediation to settle the matters including those where criminal case under 498A is filed, without diluting the purport, rigour and efficacy of the provision. Also, to set up pre-litigation mediation where matrimonial disputes can be nipped in the bud in an equitable manner. 

Pankaj Mahajan v Dimple @ Kajal 2012 AIR 673:

The Supreme Court decided that violent, abusive, irresponsible or belligerent behaviour of the spouse suffering from Schizophrenia amounts to mental cruelty. The husband was subjected insults, physical abuse, neglect and mental agony due to constant threats to commit suicide. The child was also subjected to neglect and physical abuse by the mother. 

Here, the mental cruelty to the spouse while the other suffering from mental disorder considered to be a ground to seek matrimonial remedy was upheld. 

A Jayachandra v Aneel Kaur 2005 AIR 534:

In this case, the Supreme Court reiterated the “reasonable apprehension of injury/harm” test from Dastane v Dastane. It was clarified that mere annoyance or irritation may not constitute cruelty, but a spontaneous change in human behavior restricting the partner to live with the spouse under constant fear of endangering life or bodily injuries does. 

The Apex Court further states that the expression “cruelty” has not been defined in the Hindu Marriage Act, 1055. The said expression has been used in relation to human conduct or human behaviour. It is the conduct in relation to or in respect of matrimonial duties and obligations. Cruelty is a course or conduct of one, which is adversely affecting the other. It may be defined as wilful and unjustifiable conduct of such character as to cause danger to life, limb or health, bodily or mental, or as to give rise to a reasonable apprehension of such a danger. The question of mental cruelty has to be considered in the light of the norms of marital ties of the particular society to which the parties belong, their social values, status, environment in which they live.

Vishnu Dutt Sharma v Manju Sharma 2009 AIR 2254: 

In this case, the petitioner could not prove the cruelty and hence the divorce was not granted on the grounds of cruelty. Further claims of irretrievable breakdown of marriage were also not entertained citing that it is not provided in the statute as one of the grounds. The precedents were considered to be given without clarifying the legal position of the judiciary. It reiterated that the amendment to the statute is the function of the legislature. 

Making Derogatory and Defamatory Complaints to Spouse’s Employer Amounts to Cruelty:

The recent judgement by the Delhi High Court making derogatory and defamatory remarks in the form of complaints to the spouse’s employer were nothing but cruelty upholding the Family Court’s ruling in the same case. The High Court division bench (Renu Bhatnagar & Navin Chawla JJ) stated that the complaints made by wife to her husband’s employer, especially those involving unsubstantiated claims of adultery, could not be treated so as to address the issues of any wrong done to her, as the husband’s employer had nothing to do with all such wrongs and lead to the irresistible conclusion that they were made to harass the husband and to humiliate him in his workplace before his colleagues. The Court held that irrespective of the merits of these complaints, and regardless of whether the allegations made therein were false or true, making such derogatory and defamatory remarks in the form of complaints to the employer of the spouse were nothing but cruelty.

In the case mentioned above, both the spouses had filed multiple cases making allegations on each other of various acts of matrimonial discord. The wife’s allegations could not be proved through evidence, whereas the husband’s allegations were corroborated with the evidence presented before the court. Without proving or disproving the allegations made by the wife in the complaint made to the employer of the husband, the court decided that the employer of the husband has nothing to do with the allegations and hence considered that such derogatory and defamatory complaint is made by the wife only to lower the dignity of her husband in front of his colleagues. 

Conclusion: 

The foundational shift in Dastane v Dastane to recognise the mental cruelty confirming the deepest wounds aren’t always physical has opened up the vision of the judicial decisions to see the bigger picture. The exhaustive catalogue that has been revised by the court judgements includes verbal abuse, humiliation, neglect, constant threat to commit suicide, threat to file criminal cases, accusations of adultery or mental illness, financial/ economic deprivation, sexual violence, unsound mindedness of the spouse, harassment and demands of dowry, malicious filing of false criminal cases, refusal of intimacy or refusal to cohabit without any just cause, unilateral life-altering decision making, substance abuse by the spouse, complaining to the employer of the spouse with derogatory and defamatory content, humiliating or insulting the spouse in public places, and so on. The “realms of cruelty” mapped by these landmark judgments are vast, but they affirm a fundamental principle: no one should be condemned to endure a marriage that is a source of unending misery. The law, in recognizing the many faces of cruelty, has become a powerful, albeit complex, tool for liberation and justice.