Cruelty as a Ground for Divorce

Matrimonial matters are matters of delicate human and emotional relationship. It demands mutual trust,
regard, respect, love and affection with sufficient play for reasonable adjustments with the spouse. The
relationship has to conform to the social norms as well. The matrimonial conduct has now come to be
governed by statute framed, keeping in view such norms and changed social order.
Divorce in general means the breakage or dissolution of marriage with the help of law, so that one can
leave his or her spouse and become free from marital duties with some exceptions.
Section 13(1) (ia) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 provides. “The other party has, after the solemnization of
marriage, treated the petitioner with cruelty.” Cruelty as a ground for divorce in this Act was introduced
through the amendment of 1976. Before that it was only a valid ground for judicial separation but not a
valid ground for divorce.
Apart from these personal laws the Indian Penal Code also makes cruelty against women an offence under
Section 498A of the Code. The section reads as: “Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the
husband of
a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may
extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine.” The nature of offence is non-bailable, cognizable
and non- compoundable. It covers not only physical cruelty but also mental cruelty in the form of “torture
and abnormal behaviour."
What Is Cruelty?
Every matrimonial conduct, which may cause annoyance to the other, may not amount to cruelty. Mere
trivial irritations, quarrels between spouses, which happen in day-to-day married life, may also not
amount to cruelty.
Cruelty in matrimonial life may be of unfounded variety, which can be subtle or brutal. It may be words,
gestures or by mere silence, violent or non-violent.
To constitute cruelty, the conduct complained of should be “grave and weighty” so as to come to the
conclusion that the petitioner spouse cannot be reasonably expected to live with the other spouse. It must
be something more serious than “ordinary wear and tear of married life.” Jayachandra v Aneel Kaur
(2005)
The conduct taking into consideration the circumstances and background has to be examined to reach the
conclusion whether the conduct complained of amounts to cruelty in the matrimonial law. Conduct has to
be considered, as noted above, in the background of several factors such as social status of parties, their
education, physical and mental conditions, customs and traditions. It is difficult to lay down a precise
definition or to give exhaustive description of the circumstances, which would constitute cruelty. It must
be of the type as to satisfy the conscience of the court that the relationship between the parties had
deteriorated to such extent due to the conduct of the other spouse that it would be impossible for them to
live together without mental agony, torture or distress, to entitle the complaining spouse to secure divorce.
Physical violence is not absolutely essential to constitute cruelty and a consistent course of conduct
inflicting immeasurable mental agony and torture may well constitute cruelty. Mental cruelty may consist
of verbal abuses and insults by using filthy and abusive language leading to constant disturbance of
mental peace of the other party.
In the case of Samar Ghosh v. Jaya Ghosh, the Supreme Court gave a list of illustrations which depict
mental Cruelty. The list however, is not exhaustive.
“Unilateral decision of refusal to have intercourse for a considerable period without any physical
incapacity or valid reason may amount to mental cruelty. Unilateral decision of either husband or wife
after marriage not to have a child may amount to mental cruelty.” Frequent rudeness of language,
petulance, and indifference, sustained abusive and humiliating treatment calculated to torture or render
miserable the life of the spouse could amount to mental cruelty. Apart from this if the husband or the wife
undergoes sterilization or abortion (in the latter case) without the knowledge or consent of the spouse may
also amount to mental cruelty. In the case referred to here, it was also pointed out that his wife did not
cook for him while she made it only for herself. The Supreme Court had recognized this act of the wife as
an act of mental cruelty.
In Dastane Vs Dastane, It is in this landmark judgment that the Supreme Court of India for the first time
recognized mental cruelty as a valid ground for divorce and also the theory of condonation of the same on
the basis of Sec. 23 (1) (b) of the Hindu Marriage Act.
Facts:
Allegations of husband
1. The father of the respondent did not give any information about the psychological condition of
the respondent initially.
2. On various occasions, she lost her temper, insulted him and his family which caused
inconvenience to him at his workplace and home.
3. He found various letters of the respondent which were sent to her family and friends which
indicated her problematic viewpoint related to him and his family.
Allegations of wife
1. The letters mentioned by the appellant were created by her only, but under the pressure of the
appellant.
2. The appellant was abusing his own wrong and did not have the courage to accept it.
3. The appellant was continuing sexual relations with the respondent after knowing the mental
condition of her which caused 3-month pregnancy at the time of leaving the wrecked marital
home.
In this case, Justice Y.V. Chandrachud laid down following the 5 tests to determine whether the
respondent conduct would amount to cruelty or not:

• The alleged act constituting cruelty should be proven according to the law of evidence;
• There should be apprehension in the petitioner’s mind of real injury or harm from such conduct;
• The apprehension should be reasonable having regard to the conditions of the parties;
• The petitioner should not have taken advantage of his position;
• The petitioner should not have condoned the acts of cruelty.
The SC held that the wife threatening to end her life, and verbally abusing the husband, among other acts,
amounted to mental cruelty.
It observed that the inquiry has to be whether the conduct charged as cruelty is of such a character as to
cause in the mind of the petitioner a reasonable worry that it will be harmful to live with the respondent.
The Supreme Court of India held that the appellant’s contention regarding his wife being of unsound
mind was fabricated by him. The contention regarding the respondent inflicting cruelty on the appellant
has been proven to exist within the meaning of Section 10(1)(b) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, but the
appellant’s act of engaging in sexual intercourse with the respondent leads to condonation of cruelty in the
eyes of law. The respondent was willing to return to the household shared by both parties as she realized
her mistakes. The appellant condoned the respondent after which she did not act in the manner she did
before the condonation. Hence, the respondent will not be held liable for cruelty and the divorce petition
will not be granted.
Condonation means forgiveness of the matrimonial offence and restoration of offending spouse to
the same position as he or she occupied before the offence was committed.
In the landmark judgement of Mayadevi Vs. Jagdish Prasad in February 2007, the Supreme Court held
that any kind of mental cruelty faced by either of the spouses, not just the woman but men as well, can
apply for a divorce on grounds of cruelty. In this case, the respondent filed an application of divorce after
a repeated course of cruelty inflicted by his wife and as alleged by the husband (respondent) that the wife
did not provide food to him and his children and blamed the husband and his family members instead.
Hence, a man is also entitled to divorce if he is inflicted with any kind of cruelty.