ADAMAS UNIVERSITY, KOLKATA

FAMILY LAW

TOPIC:

CRUELTY AS A GROUND FOR DIVORCE UNDER HINDU MARRIAGE

ACT, 1955.

SUBMITTED TO:

Ms. LAHAMA MAZUMDAR

SUBMITTED BY:

KUMUD CHOUDHARY (UG/03/BBALLB/2022/032)

ADITYA RAJ (UG/03/BBALLB/2022/025)

1|Page
INTRODUCTION

The Hindu Marriage Act of 1955 initially recognized cruelty as a ground for judicial
separation but not for divorce. The term cruelty was not explicitly defined in the Act, and its
usage in Section 10, which dealt with judicial separation, was limited. However, the
Legislature of Uttar Pradesh sought to include cruelty as a ground for divorce, leading to the
amendment of Section 13 of the Act. The amendment incorporated cruelty as a ground for
divorce without defining the term.

Cruelty is generally understood to encompass any behaviour that causes physical or mental
distress, whether intentional or unintentional. In cases of physical cruelty, the degree and
factual aspects are considered, while mental cruelty is evaluated based on the nature of the
cruel treatment and its impact on the spouse's mind. The Act does not define cruelty, and the
courts rely on external sources, such as English court decisions, to interpret its meaning.

The Supreme Court of India has defined cruelty as any behaviour that negatively affects the
mental and physical health, social status, and lifestyle of the other party. After verifying the
various decisions of the honourable judiciary of our country, the meaning of cruelty is given
as:

1. CRUELTY INCLUDES PHYSICAL AND MENTAL CRUELTY.

2. CRUELTY IS THE RES GESTAE THAT ADVERSE EFFECTS ON THE MENTAL

AND PHYSICAL HEALTH, SOCIAL STATUS AND LIFE STYLE OF THE OTHER
PARTY."

2|Page
Physical and Mental are two kinds of cruelty recognized by the modern legal concept.
However, the changing span of social life, modern exigencies and complicities of society, and
the generation gap have paved the way for the emergence of new categories of the concept of
cruelty.

Lord Denning was quite right when he observed that, "The categories of cruelty are not
closed".1 'The cruelty may be mental or physical, intentional or unintentional. In cases of
physical cruelty, determining its severity involves an assessment of factual evidence and
degree. Regarding mental cruelty, the investigation commences with an examination of the
nature of the cruel behavior and its impact on the spouse's mental well-being. Whether such
treatment reasonably creates fear of harm or injury to cohabit with the other person is inferred
by considering the conduct's nature and its effect on the complaining spouse. Sometimes, the
conduct itself may be inherently unlawful or illegal, obviating the need to assess its impact on
the other spouse. In such instances, cruelty is established if the conduct is proven or admitted,
irrespective of intent. The absence of intention does not negate cruelty if the act, judged by
common human standards, qualifies as such. Intentionality is not a prerequisite for cruelty.
Denying relief to the aggrieved party based on the lack of deliberate or wilful mistreatment is
unjustifiable. The alleged cruelty may hinge significantly on the parties' accustomed lifestyle,
economic and social circumstances, as well as their cultural and moral values. Each case must
be evaluated independently based on its unique circumstances.2

PHYSICAL CRUELTY

Acts of physical violence against another spouse resulting in injury to body, limb or health, or
causing a reasonable apprehension thereto, have been traditionally considered as legal
cruelty. What acts of physical violence will amount to cruelty will differ from case to case,
depending upon the susceptibility or sensibility of the parties. In the case of a thick-skinned
person, the same acts of physical violence may not amount to cruelty as they may in the
average case3. Dua, J. very pertinently said that in our society women normally submit

1
Sheldon v. Sheldon (1966) 2 All ER257
2
S. P. Khetarpal, THE MODERN CONCEPT OF CRUELTY (A Comparative Study), 6 MALAYA LAW REVIEW 303 (1964).
3
Physical Abuse Perpetrated by In-laws: An Analysis of Nationally Representative Survey Data from 47 Low-
and Middle-income Countries | Journal of Family Violence, https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10896-
023-00620-9 (last visited Mar 21, 2024).

3|Page
themselves to their fate and bear ill-treatment at the hands of their husbands, and unless a
climax is reached, they typically refrain from resorting to the extreme measure of visiting a
police station to file a report.4 In this case, the husband ill-treated the wife, and beat her, so
much so that she had to go to the police to lodge a report. His Lordship said that even if the
injuries on her person are considered not to be so serious as to call for their treatment by a
medical practitioner if she has been treated and beaten, that must be held to amount to cruelty
according to the standards of all civilized states. Sayal v Sarla5 was also a case of physical
cruelty. Saptami v Jagdish’6 was a case of physical cruelty coupled with mental cruelty. The
husband continuously verbally assaulted and degraded the wife, and eventually, on one
occasion at her father's residence, he forcefully shoved her against a wall, resulting in visible
bruises. Jyotish Chandra v Merra7 was also a case of physical cruelty coupled with mental
cruelty and desertion. It is a settled law that physical violence is not a necessary ingredient of
cruelty. Unending accusations and imputations can cause more pain and misery than a
physical beating. Therefore, the act of cruelty consists of mental torture or physical violence.
If it is physical violence, there will be no problem for a court to decide while determining a
case presented before it, but in case of mental torture or harassment, the court finds it
comparatively more difficult to conclude. Firstly, the court begins its enquiry as to the nature
of cruel treatment as well as the impact of that treatment in the mind of the spouse. In the
end, it relies on an inference drawn from considering the nature of the behaviour and its
impact on the spouse complaining.8 It has been held in Currie v. Currie9 that cruelty means to
be subjected to physical abuse. Elaborating the concept of physical cruelty it has been
observed in Goodrich v. Goodrich10 that: If the conduct of the husband is shown to be
habitually cruel, indifferent, rude, ferocious, vulgar, obscene, and profane toward the wife,
and she is seen, shortly after being with him, in tears, with bruises on her face, lips and a
contused wound on her side of a serious character, which lasted two months, and the husband
admits when complained of, that these indications of bad treatment were produced by him,
his explanation that they were given in playfulness and jest, and not in anger and in earnest,

4
Kaushalya v Wisakhi Ram, 1961, Punjab, 520.
5
Sayal v. Sarla, 1961, Punjab, 125.
6
Saptmi v. Jagdish, 1969, 87, Con. 502.
7
1970, Cal. 226.
8
Mental Cruelty As A Ground For Divorce U | PDF | Divorce | Psychological Abuse, SCRIBD,
https://www.scribd.com/document/518400061/Mental-Cruelty-as-a-Ground-for-Divorce-u (last visited Mar
22, 2024).
9
50 NE 2d, 120.
10
44 Ala 670 of 675.

4|Page
will not be sufficient to rescue his conduct from the construction that these appearances are
evidence of legal cruelty sufficient to justify a divorce in favour of the wife for that cause,
under allowing a divorce for the cause of cruelty, when the husband has committed actual
violence on the person of the wife, attended with danger to life or health, or when, from his
conduct, there is a reasonable apprehension of such violence.

Evidence that the husband on different occasions struck his wife and told her to leave their
home and that the wife's health was seriously impaired by such conduct, sustained the
chancellor's finding that the husband was guilty of "cruelty" justifying an award of divorce a
Mensa et thoro to wife11.

Typically, if a spouse occasionally resorts to acts of physical violence alongside persistent

use of offensive language, the collective pattern of behaviour would be considered as 'cruelty'
warranting divorce. However, it's important to note that mere instances of physical violence,
without accompanying factors, may not be sufficient grounds for divorce.12

In the wife's divorce action, the instruction that for extreme and repeated cruelties to
constitute ground for divorce, the cruelty must be grave and subject the person to great bodily
harm, was erroneous since 'cruelty' constituting ground for divorce means physical acts of
violence, bodily harm, or suffering, or such acts as endanger life or limb or such as raise a
reasonable apprehension of great bodily harm.13

"Cruelty", as a statutory ground for divorce, includes physical acts of violence, bodily harm
or suffering, or such as raise a reasonable apprehension of great bodily harm, but does not
include bad temper, Petulance, rude language, want of civil attentions, or angry and abusive
words.14

In Trenchard v. Trenchard15 it was observed that- In the context of the law permitting
divorce based on cruelty, "cruelty" refers to physical violence that causes bodily harm,
jeopardizes life or limb, or instils a reasonable fear of bodily harm, indicating a state of
personal danger that is incompatible with marriage. Instances of bad temper, irritable
behaviour, impolite language, lack of courtesy, or verbal abuse alone are not considered
sufficient grounds for cruelty in this context.

11
Sensabaugh v. Sensabaugh, 46 A.2d 635, 636, 186 Md. 348.
12
Fleck v. Fleck, 58, N.W. 2d 765, 768, 79, N.D. 561.
13
Bissekumar v. Bissekumer, 57 N.E.2d 521, 324 Ill. App. 158.
14
Jackson v. Jackson, 14 N.E. 2d 271, 273, 294 Ill. App. 552.
15
Trenchard v. Trenchard, 92 N.E. 243, 245.

5|Page
 "Cruelty", in the sense of the statutes on this subject, is such conduct in one of the married
parties as renders his continuance of cohabitation either so dangerous to the other party in
fact or attended with such reasonable apprehension in the mind of the other, to the physical
distress or discomfort of the other, as to demand his separation on the ground of the real
physical safety of the other or of the mental or physical capacity of the other to discharge
well the duties of husband or wife.16

"Cruelty" under divorce law refers to any behaviour exhibited by a husband that gives rise to
a reasonable fear that continuing cohabitation could result in physical harm to the wife, even
if it does not entail actual violence. Evidence that a husband ran the wife out of the house and
threatened to kill her shows such cruelty as to warrant a decree in her favour. 17 The level of
cruelty necessary to justify the granting of a divorce "either involves actual physical violence,
or a justifiable fear of it, or a pattern of behaviour that puts life or health at risk and makes
cohabitation unsafe." May v. May.18

MENTAL CRUELTY

Mental cruelty is more injurious than physical cruelty. It has been recognized as one of the
grounds of desertion of Marriage. It consists of three elements:

"(1) A course of abusive and humiliating treatment;

(2) Deliberately designed or clearly intended to torment, inconvenience, or make the life of
the other spouse miserable; and

(3) affecting the physical or mental health of such spouse..." 19

There is no single definition of mental cruelty since the acts which constitute the same are
myriad. There can even be no standard requirement for judging mental cruelty. The social
values, status and surrounding circumstances (which include the physical and mental
capacities to endure the susceptibilities of the other spouse) have to be considered. Existing
norms of marital ties are important in this regard too. The flexible nature of this concept is
highlighted by the fact that mental cruelty as a concept differs in various personal laws

16
Crutcher v. Cruther, p. 3850, 337
17
Carr v. Carr, 55, So. 96, 97, 171 Ala. 600, quoting with approval Smedley v. Smedley, 30 Ala. 715.
18
62 Pa. 12.
19
Post | brillopedia, https://www.brillopedia.net/post/mental-cruelty-as-a-ground-for-divorce-under-hindu-
law (last visited Mar 22, 2024).

6|Page
according to their customs and practices, e.g., purdah as a practice may be considered cruel in
a Hindu family, but that would not be the case in a Muslim household.20

The legal interpretation of mental cruelty therefore largely depends on judicial

pronouncements. Controversies and uncertainties become inevitable as judicial decisions too
are seldom uniform depending on the unique nature of each case. These are unavoidable
today as family structures and obligations are becoming less rigid and relationships are being
viewed more in terms of rights than duties. Today, mental cruelty as a ground of divorce has
become excessively significant. This is true since the cause of most broken marriages today is
mental harassment rather than overt physical abuse. Mental cruelty in modern matrimonial
law is a very important aspect of legal cruelty. N. Sreepadachara v. Vasantha21 provides a
very good illustration of mental cruelty. The court found that the wife quarrelled with, and
hurled the vilest abuses at her husband over trivial matters, on account of which the husband
had to spend many sleepless nights. She abused him in the foulest possible language and
insulted and humiliated him. She subjected him to humiliation and shame before the public,
made him a laughing stock in the locality, and made him feel very miserable. On one
occasion she abused, insulted and humiliated the husband in a public bus and caught hold of
his collar. On another occasion she made him cook food for her, and when he served food to
her, she threw plates on his head saying that the food was very badly cooked, and she insisted
that he must apologize to her. Once, when he was going to his office with his colleagues, she
caught hold of his neck and abused and insulted him. She used to say that she wanted her
husband to be killed in some accident so that she could have his provident fund and insurance
money. The court had no difficulty in finding the wife. Intentional and unjustified intrusion
by one spouse into the realm of the other constitutes a form of cruelty, similar to how forceful
or authoritarian behaviour, unnatural sexual acts, or offensive allegations of infidelity or
unfaithfulness, as well as deliberate neglect or continuous pestering, represent other forms of
cruelty. If a spouse is subjected to insults, abuses, humiliations, and accusations of adulterous
conduct, it would make married life impossible to endure and would create a very unhappy
and miserable existence. This type of cruelty is worse than the act of physical violence.

20
The Evolution of the Doctrine of Mental Cruelty in Victorian American Divorce, 1790-1900 on JSTOR,
https://www.jstor.org/stable/3788279 (last visited Mar 24, 2024).
21
1976. Mys 23

7|Page
 22
In Kusumlata v. Kamta Prasad false accusations of adultery were made orally, in the
lawyer's notice, and the pleadings. In Sapimi v. Jagdish23, In the cited case, the husband
persistently referred to his wife in derogatory terms such as a prostitute or a street girl. The
court remarked that such actions by the husband, labelling his wife with such demeaning
epithets despite her innocence, were deeply shocking and incapacitating for her ability to
fulfil her duties as a spouse. Considering the respectable and educated backgrounds of both
spouses, this form of cruelty was deemed even more severe than physical violence, as it
undermined the fundamental pillars of their marital relationship.24

Similarly, there cannot be a greater degree of cruelty than to compel a chaste wife to submit
to overtures of other persons, out of ignoble desire to make money by prostituting her 25.
Persistent refusal to have marital intercourse is also a cruelty of the same category. Chander
v. Sudesh 26provides yet another good illustration of mental cruelty. The wife left the husband
a day after the marriage and went to live at some unknown place. Then she stayed with her
cousin, during which period she was seen with various persons in public places. The court
found that this conduct of the wife caused great mental, moral and psychological torture to
the husband.

Rooplal v. Kartaro27 is a case of a different type. In this case, the wife was suffering from a
deadly disease (atrophic rhinitis) as a result of which the fleshy portion of her nose got
putrefied and emitted a very bad smell. This made it impossible for the husband to have
sexual intercourse with her or to enjoy her company. The court said that this has resulted in
the frustration of the very purpose of marriage, though in no way the wife was responsible for
it, but the husband also could not help it either. The court held that this amounted to cruelty.

Explaining the concept of Mental Cruelty, Mulla28:

The wording of the clause is sufficiently broad to encompass instances of mental cruelty.
Previously, it was believed that actual physical harm or the reasonable fear of it was the
primary element of this offense within marriage. However, this perspective has been rejected,

22
1966 All. 280.
23
1970 Cal. 266
24
Ibid at p. 266.
25
Dawn v. Handerson, 1970 Mad. 104
26
AIR1971DELHI208, 7(1971)DLT244
27
970 J & K. 158.
28
Principles of Hindu Law, 1978, 718-719.

8|Page
and the contemporary understanding is that mental cruelty can inflict even greater harm,
causing the injured spouse to reasonably fear for their safety or well-being if they continue to
live with the other party. The principle that cruelty can be inferred from the entirety of the
facts and the marital relationship, as revealed by the evidence of their daily interactions,
carries more weight in cases involving mental cruelty. A substantial body of case law has
evolved around the concept of what is sometimes referred to as 'legal cruelty.' It is worth
noting that facts and circumstances vary greatly, as do other relevant factors, making it so
that acts considered cruel in one instance may not meet the required threshold in another.
Therefore, caution must be exercised when comparing the facts of different cases.
Nonetheless, certain broad general principles have emerged from the rulings, which can be
valuable in guiding analysis in such matters.:

(i) Cruelty can be deduced from the complete set of circumstances, including the
matrimonial dynamics and day-to-day interactions as revealed by the evidence. Determining
whether the respondent treated the petitioner cruelly is a unified inquiry that requires
consideration of all relevant facts. This principle, as articulated by at least two Lords in the
Jamieson v. Jamieson case, underscores the need to evaluate the entirety of the situation
before reaching a conclusion. 29in the House of Lords' this principle may now be said to be
well established by that decision. Similarly, it is widely acknowledged that it is incorrect to
compartmentalize the alleged acts or behaviours into separate categories and conclude that
each one, taken individually, does not meet the threshold for cruelty, and therefore, the
entirety cannot be considered as meeting that standard.30

(ii) Creating categories of acts or behaviours as universally indicative or devoid of the

qualities that constitute mental cruelty is neither advisable nor feasible. There's no need to
classify acts as gross or less gross. Some acts might seem trivial on their own, and the court
might rightly disregard them. Conversely, seemingly minor acts could reveal deeper issues
within the marriage and the parties' state of mind. Since cruelty is inferred from the entirety
of the marital relationship, it's inappropriate to evaluate each alleged incident individually
and conclude that they collectively lack significance. Marriage, in this context, should not be
reduced to a mere accumulation of incidents.31

29
Jamieson v. Jamieson (1952) A.C. 525, 550.
30
Articles – Manupatra, https://articles.manupatra.com/article-details/CRUELTY-AS-A-GROUND-FOR-DIVORCE-
ANALYZING-THE-SPHERE-OF-MENTAL-CRUELTY (last visited Mar 25, 2024).
31
Supra, Note 28

9|Page
(iii) In general cruelty is in its character a cumulative charge. It is not necessary that the acts
complained of must be a certain character. The conduct may consist of several acts each of
which is serious in itself, but it may well be even more effective if it consists of a long-
continued series of minor acts no one of which could be regarded as serious if taken in
isolation. Every such act must be judged about its attendant circumstances, and the physical
or mental condition or susceptibilities of the innocent spouse and the offender's knowledge of
the actual or probable effect of his conduct on the other's health. 32 The age, environment,
standard of culture and status in the life of the parties are also matters which may be or course
of conduct lies. The acts and incidents complained of as also the conduct of the parties must
be taken together to form a composite picture from which alone it can be ascertained whether
the acts of one spouse on another should, be judged about all the surrounding circumstances,
be found to amount to cruelty.

(iv) The existence of cruelty depends not on the magnitude, but rather on the consequence of
the offence, actual or apprehended.33

(v) "Mental ill-treatment may be coupled with physical ill-treatment in order together to find
a charge of cruel treatment. Since mental and physical ill-treatment can, though they are not
generic, be taken together, it must follow that different forms of ill-treatment may be taken
together to found a charge of treatment which amounts to cruelty.’34

In Samar Ghosh v. Jaya Ghosh35, the court held that "No uniform standard can ever be laid
down for guidance, yet we deem it appropriate to enumerate some instances of human
behaviour which may be relevant in dealing with the cases of mental cruelty. The examples
provided in the following paragraphs serve as illustrations rather than an exhaustive list:

(i) When considering the entirety of the marital relationship, severe mental anguish and
suffering that render it impossible for the parties to coexist may constitute mental cruelty.

(ii) After thoroughly assessing the entire marital journey, it becomes evident that the
circumstances are such that the aggrieved party cannot reasonably be expected to tolerate
such behaviour and continue living with the other party.

32
Lord Reid in Jamieson v. Jamieson (1952) A.C. 525
33
Barker v. Barker (1949) 1 All E.R. 247, 250 (1949) P. 219.
34
Cooper v. Cooper (1954) 3 All E.R. 415.
35
2007, 4 SCC, 511

10 | P a g e
(iii) Merely exhibiting coldness or lack of affection does not qualify as cruelty. However,
frequent instances of rude language, petulance, indifference, and neglect may escalate to a
level where married life becomes intolerable for the affected spouse.

(iv) Mental cruelty is a subjective state of mind. Prolonged feelings of deep anguish,
disappointment, and frustration resulting from the actions of one spouse over time may lead
to mental cruelty.

(v) It entails a sustained pattern of abusive and humiliating behavior aimed at tormenting,
inconveniencing, or making the other spouse's life miserable.

(vi) Such persistent unjustifiable conduct profoundly affects the physical and mental well-
being of the other spouse. The treatment complained of and the resulting danger or
apprehension must be significant and weighty.

(vii) Prolonged reprehensible behaviour, deliberate neglect, indifference, or a departure from

the normal standards of marital kindness causing harm to mental health or deriving pleasure
from inflicting suffering can also constitute mental cruelty.

(viii) However, the conduct must surpass mere jealousy, selfishness, or possessiveness, which
may cause unhappiness and dissatisfaction. Trivial disagreements or the normal challenges of
married life would not suffice as grounds for divorce due to mental cruelty.

(ix) The entirety of the marriage should be evaluated, and isolated incidents over time may
not qualify as cruelty. The misconduct must persist over a considerable period, leading the
aggrieved party to find it extremely challenging to continue living with the other.

(x) If a spouse undergoes sterilization or abortion without medical necessity or without the
consent or knowledge of the other spouse, such actions may be considered as mental cruelty.

(xi) Unilateral decisions to refuse intimacy for an extended period without valid reasons or
physical incapacity may amount to mental cruelty.

(xii) Similarly, unilateral decisions by either spouse after marriage to refrain from having
children from the marriage may also be deemed cruel.

(xiii) Prolonged periods of continuous separation may signify that the marital bond is
irreparable. Refusing to dissolve the marriage in such cases disregards the emotional well-
being of the parties involved and may constitute mental cruelty.

11 | P a g e
CRUELTY ON THE PART OF THE HUSBAND

(1) Depriving the wife of her entire salary, returning home late inebriated, and resorting to
physical violence if she objects constitutes "cruelty" on the husband's part36.

(2) Forcing the wife into unwanted sexual acts such as sodomy, fellatio, or cunnilingus
amounts to physical cruelty37.

(3) Accusing the wife of unchastity, even if retracted later, constitutes mental cruelty,
especially if repeated in legal documents38.

(4) Demanding dowry frequently is considered cruelty39.

(5) The husband's impotency, without proving capability for erection and penetration, is
deemed cruel to the wife40.

(6) The wife's pre-marital pregnancy and subsequent childbirth within six months were
grounds for divorce, indicating cruelty on her part.41

(7) Repeated slanderous allegations against the wife, causing humiliation and emotional
distress, constitute cruelty42.

(8) Behaviour causing irreparable damage to reputation, character, and fidelity constitutes
cruelty, justifying divorce43. Disputing paternity without substantiation also amounts to
cruelty44.

These court rulings exemplify situations where marital behaviour crosses the threshold
outlined in the Hindu Marriage Act for cruelty. To assess whether it exists, the judicial
process involves establishing probabilities and then weighing them. The initial step sifts out

36
Asha v. Baldev, AIR 1985 Del. 76
37
A v. B, AIR 1985 Guj.121
38
A v. B, AIR 1985 Guj.121
39
Sobha Rani v. Madhukar Reddy, AIR 1988 SC 121
40
Madanlal v. Sudesh Kumari, AIR 1988 Del. 93
41
Madanlal v. Sudesh Kumari, AIR 1988 Del. 93
42
Jai Dayal v. Shakuntala Devi, AIR 2004 Del. 39
43
A. Jaya Chandra v. Aneel Kaur, AIR 2005 SC 535
44
Chiranjeevi v. Lavanya, AIR 2006 AP 269

12 | P a g e
the impossible, followed by filtering out the improbable. Within the spectrum of
probabilities, the court often faces a challenging decision, determining where the weight of
evidence lies. Matters of significant importance, such as the parties' status, require closer
examination than trivial issues like a loan agreement. Proof beyond reasonable doubt, a
higher standard typically applied in criminal or quasi-criminal trials, is not required by either
Section 10 or Section 23 of the Hindu Marriage Act. Section 23 empowers the court to grant
a decree if it is convinced regarding the matters specified in Clauses (a) to (e) of that section.
Given that proceedings under the Act are essentially civil, satisfaction must be based on a
preponderance of probabilities rather than proof beyond reasonable doubt.

Society has a vested interest in the institution of marriage; thus, the erring spouse is viewed
not merely as a defaulter but as an offender. However, while this social philosophy
underscores the necessity for clear evidence before accepting allegations as grounds for
divorce, it does not influence the standard of proof in matrimonial cases.

The term "cruelty" remains undefined in the Act, encompassing both physical and mental
forms. Cruelty, a basis for dissolution of marriage, entails willful and unjustifiable behavior
posing a threat to life, limb, or mental health, or giving rise to reasonable apprehension of
such danger. Mental cruelty is assessed in light of societal norms, values, and the marital
context of the parties involved. It need not manifest physically; if a spouse's behavior causes
legitimate concern about the other spouse's mental well-being, it constitutes cruelty. In the
delicate realm of marital relationships, probabilities, rather than proof beyond a shadow of a
doubt, guide assessment, distinguishing these matters from criminal trials.

CRUELTY TO HUSBAND:

The court case of Satya v. Suri Ram established that a wife who willfully undergoes an
abortion against the wishes of her husband and family members is guilty of cruelty towards
the husband.

In the case of Shobha Rani v. Madhukar Reddy, the wife, who had a postgraduate degree in
biological sciences, filed for divorce from her husband, a doctor, on grounds of cruelty. She
proved that her husband and in-laws frequently demanded dowry. While the trial court and
High Court did not consider the dowry demands as harassment, the Supreme Court overruled
this and granted the wife a divorce. The court stated that an unlawful demand for dowry itself
constitutes cruelty under matrimonial law.

13 | P a g e
The passage enumerates a series of behaviors attributed to a spouse that are deemed to
constitute cruelty, including actions such as departing without notifying the partner, lodging
police complaints concerning matrimonial disputes, sending communications to the partner's
place of employment, destroying the partner's dissertation, accusing the partner of impotence,
threatening self-harm, making allegations to the partner's employer, neglecting to serve
refreshments to visitors, initiating unfounded accusations against the partner, and proceeding
with a termination of pregnancy without the partner's agreement.

Moreover, it clarifies that minor disputes do not qualify as cruelty and delineates instances
where a spouse's behavior was not judged sufficiently cruel to warrant a divorce decree. It
further articulates that a spouse retains the right to challenge a divorce decree posthumously
issued against her partner, thereby extending the litigation to the legal successors of the
deceased. The narrative exemplifies situations where a spouse's refusal to engage in sexual
relations, physical aggression towards the partner and their family, and failure to meet
conjugal responsibilities were deemed sufficient grounds for the dissolution of marriage.

CRUELTY PROVISIONS:

CRUELTY, one of the grounds for judicial separation:

Section 10(1) (b): Either party to a marriage, whether solemnized before or after the
commencement of the Act, may present a petition to the district court praying for a A court
order for legal separation based on the premise that one party has treated the petitioner in a
manner that reasonably leads the petitioner to believe that living with the other party would
be harmful or injurious.

CRUELTY, one of the grounds for DIVORCE:

Section 13(1)(i-a) : Any marriage solemnized whether before or after the commencement of
this Act, may, on a petition presented by either the husband or the wife, be dissolved by a
Court-issued divorce decree citing mistreatment by the other party after marriage
solemnization as grounds.

Effect of Condonation of CRUELTY:

Section 23(1)(b) of the Act states that in any legal proceedings under this legislation, whether
contested or not, if the court determines that the grounds for the petition align with those
specified in clause (f) of subsection 10, or in clause (i) of subsection (1) of section 13, and the

14 | P a g e
petitioner has not been involved in, condoned, or connived with the acts complained of, or in
cases of cruelty, the petitioner has not condoned the cruel behavior in any manner, then the
court shall grant the relief requested.

CONCLUSION

Marriage, as a cornerstone of societal organization, represents a commitment to established

norms and values, wherein two consenting individuals vow to uphold the obligations of
matrimony. According to the Hindu Marriage Act of 1955, cruelty stands as one of the
grounds for divorce and judicial separation. However, as the Act does not explicitly define
cruelty, its interpretation falls within the purview of the judiciary, with each case being
evaluated based on its specific circumstances. Factors such as lifestyle, education, and social
status are deemed significant in assessing cruelty, implying that what constitutes cruelty in
one instance may not necessarily apply universally. This leaves room for judicial deliberation
in every case, offering ample fodder for legal discourse. Under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu
Marriage Act-1955, cruelty is not confined solely to physical harm but encompasses a
broader spectrum of behaviour that inflicts severe mental anguish and torment. Consequently,
individuals may seek divorce on grounds of cruelty, but the determination of such claims
hinges on the particulars of each case. The courts retain the authority to interpret the concept
of cruelty within the confines of the law, adapting its meaning to fit the circumstances
presented while adhering to legal principles. Cruelty, particularly in its mental aspect, defies a
precise definition due to its broad scope and inability to be confined to rigid categories. As
noted by Lord Denning, new forms of cruelty can emerge depending on human behaviour
and their capacity or incapacity to tolerate certain conduct. Within Hindu law, mental cruelty
lacks an exhaustive definition, with the judiciary entrusted to determine its parameters based
on the specifics of each case. The judiciary acknowledges the impossibility of encompassing
every instance of mental cruelty within a single definition, recognizing the subjective nature
of human behaviour. What constitutes cruelty for one individual may not hold the same
significance for another. Hence, no fixed formula or criteria can be established to define
mental cruelty. Instead, courts must evaluate the facts and circumstances of each case. If it's
proven that the victim experiences such severe mental anguish that continuing the
relationship becomes untenable, surpassing the normal challenges of daily life, then it

15 | P a g e
qualifies as mental cruelty. The impact of the behaviour in question must be thoroughly
assessed.

SUGGESTIONS

In light of the comprehensive analysis provided on the multifaceted nature of cruelty within
the framework of the Hindu Marriage Act of 1955, a few suggestions emerge to enhance the
understanding and judicial handling of such cases:

1. Clarification and Expansion of Legal Definitions: Given the broad and evolving nature
of cruelty, a legislative update to the Hindu Marriage Act to include a more detailed
definition of cruelty could prove beneficial. This update should reflect the dual nature of
cruelty, encompassing both physical and mental aspects, and should consider the
contemporary social context, technological advancements, and changing societal norms. Such
a definition could provide a clearer guideline for the judiciary while still allowing for the
necessary judicial discretion in assessing individual cases.

2. Integration of Psychological Expertise: In cases of alleged mental cruelty, the

involvement of psychological experts could provide valuable insights into the impact of
certain behaviors on the mental health of individuals. This approach would offer a more
nuanced understanding of mental cruelty and assist the courts in making informed decisions
based on psychological assessments alongside legal considerations.

3. Enhanced Judicial Training: Regular and advanced training programs for judges on the
complexities of cruelty in matrimonial relationships could improve the sensitivity and
understanding of such issues. Training could include the latest research on domestic violence,
psychological abuse, and the impact of emerging technologies on relationships, ensuring that
judicial officers are well-equipped to handle these challenging cases.

4. Promotion of Mediation and Counseling: Encouraging mediation and counseling as

preliminary steps before proceeding with legal action in cases of cruelty could provide spaces
for reconciliation or, at the very least, a more amicable resolution. Mediation could help in

16 | P a g e
identifying the root causes of the behavior categorized as cruelty and offer both parties the
opportunity to address these issues outside the courtroom.

5. Research and Documentation: Encouraging comprehensive research and documentation

of adjudicated cases of cruelty could aid in the development of a richer jurisprudence on this
subject. Compiling case studies and legal analyses could serve as a valuable resource for
legal practitioners, judges, and scholars, promoting a deeper understanding of cruelty within
marriages and fostering a more informed legal practice.

6. Legislative Review on Emerging Forms of Cruelty: Acknowledging Lord Denning's

observation that "The categories of cruelty are not closed," the legislature should periodically
review and update the legal framework to address new and emerging forms of cruelty, such
as cyberbullying, financial manipulation, and other technologically facilitated behaviors that
may not have been prevalent or recognized at the time of the original legislation.

These suggestions aim to bolster the legal framework's responsiveness to the complexities of
cruelty in matrimonial relationships, ensuring that the law remains adaptive and sensitive to
the evolving societal norms and the myriad ways in which cruelty can manifest in the modern
age.

17 | P a g e