George Eliot stated that "cruelty, like every other vice, requires no motive outside of itself; it only

requires opportunity." Bertrand Russell stated that "the infliction of cruelty with a good
conscience is a delight to moralists. That is why they invented Hell."Gilbert K. Chesterton stated
that "cruelty is, perhaps, the worst kind of sin. Intellectual cruelty is certainly the worst kind of
cruelty."Today, there is a large volume of case laws on cruelty in India and abroad. Since
human nature and conduct are infinitely diverse. No hard and fast rules can be laid down as to
what acts or conducts will amount to cruelty in any given case. However, there is a sea change
in the attitudes of the courts. There is no difficulty in holding when physical violence amounts to
cruelty. However deciding some clear cases, questions do arise in the sphere of mental cruelty
or not. The reason is that mental cruelty may be of any kind or of infinite variety, new concept of
mental cruelty may reveal. It may be subtle or brutal. It may be by words, gestures or even by
mere silence. Perhaps this is the reason why the Legislature has not, in any of the Acts, defined
as to what cruelty is and has left it to the best judgment of the Judiciary to decide as to what
amounts to cruelty to a particular person in a particular set of circumstances. Various Judges
have, innumerous judgments, defined as to what amounts to cruelty, but once again those
definitions are not general but are only related to the facts of those particular cases. The
question of cruelty is to be judged on the totality of the circumstances. In order to term a
conduct as cruel it should be so grave and weighty that staying together becomes impossible. A
conduct to be cruel must be more serious than the ordinary wear and tear of marriage.

You will be surprised to know that out of 100 cases of divorces, in 95 cases, the ground for
divorce is cruelty and in the majority of them the cruel conduct complained of is physical
violence. However, cases of mental cruelty are also not unknown to our Courts and, at times,
complaints are made of a spouse afflicting cruelty upon another, without physical violence, just
by his or her conduct of saying something or refraining from doing something. In order to find
out whether a particular act is cruel or not, one has to look upon the effect
which is caused by that act. If the effect is that by a particular act harm has been caused to the
body or mind of the other, the said act is an act of cruelty. Indian people of whatever race and
religion they may be and to whichever class of society they may belong to are basically tolerant.
Unless the treatment received by a person from his or her spouse is extremely grave and
unbearable, it is not treated as a cruel conduct giving a ground for dissolution of marriage. Still
we do not have cases of divorce on the ground of husband snoring at night or wife refusing to
accompany husband to a party.

In the first chapter, we have tried to put forth the broad meaning of the term 'cruelty' with the
help of various definitions and illustrations in form of precedents. In the second chapter, we
begin by introducing shortly the different criminal and personal law statutes that we have made
use of for the sake of comparing the two. In the third chapter, we have analyzed the judicial
principles on the matters of cruelty. That is we have focused on the ratio decidendi and obiter
dicta held by the judiciary in cases regarding cruelty. We have stated some of the precedents
and principles held by the judiciary in certain cases which has helped the legal fraternity to
develop a new view with regards to the issue either by introducing a new view altogether or by
altering an earlier one. We have analyzed on the differences and the common thread which the
Judiciary has established between the cruelty in personal and criminal laws in India. In the
fourth chapter, we have given a detailed comparative study of two major countries which
currently have a better legal framework as compared to India namely the United Kingdom and
the United States. In the fifth and final chapter contains a conclusive analysis of the concept of
cruelty in a nutshell. Personal stand of the authors of this research work on this topic has been
given. Also certain drawbacks and loopholes have been pointed out in the current legal
framework and corrective measures have been recommended to repair the same.

Kanchanapalli Lalitha kumari v. Kanchanapalli Ramaprasada Rao, 1992 (2) ALT 631.

The High Court held that the accusation made by the husband in his written statement,
opposing the petition of his wife and alleging therein, without proving the same, that his wife was
leading an adulterous life, was cruelty afflicted by the husband upon the wife.

SUSPECTING HUSBAND OF EXTRA- MARITAL AFFAIR “CRUELTY”: COURT

LUCKNOW: Leveling baseless allegations of illicit relationship and extra-marital affairs against
one’s husband amounts to serious cruelty and is a ground enough for divorce, ruled the
Allahabad High Court's Lucknow Bench, granting divorce to a police officer of Provincial Police
Services (PPS) after 18 years of marriage. The couple had been living apart for eight years and
has a 17-year-old daughter. The bench observed that it tried hard to settle the matter amicably
through compromise and also referred the case to its Mediation Centre, but the couple did not
agree to resolve the dispute."Under these circumstances, when both the parties do not intend to
live together as wife and husband, it would be better to free both of them from matrimonial
obligations so that they may lead their independent life in the manner they want," the bench
said. The couple was married in Pratapgarh on January 29, 1996. The husband was serving in
Reserve Bank of India at the time of marriage. Later, he was selected in PPS and awarded
President’s Medal for eliminating Nirbhay Gujar Gang in an encounter. The couple had a
daughter on July28, 1997. However, fissures emerged in the relationship and the couple went
apart in April 2006.The same year, the husband moved a suit under section 13 of the Hindu
Marriage Act seeking divorce from his wife in the Family Court, Lucknow. In retaliation, the wife
filed application for restitution for conjugal rights under section 9 of the Act in 2007. The
additional principal judge of the Family Court dismissed the husband's divorce plea on May 3,
2008 whereas he allowed the wife's plea to live with the husband. Dissatisfied with the Family
Court decision, both the parties challenged the verdict in the HC by filing First Appeal. Reverting
the verdict of the family court after six years, a bench of justice Rajiv Sharma and justice
Mahendra Dayal observed, "Considering the manner in which the proceedings of this case have
been initiated and allegations and counter-allegations have been made by the parties against
each other, we find that even if the suit for divorce is dismissed and parties are directed to live
together, they will not reunite. More so, a court cannot compel them to reunite."

The husband had alleged in his divorce petition that his wife had been physically and mentally
harassing him and due to this, it had become impossible for him to linger the relationship.
Among other allegations, his wife had been suspecting that he was having an illicit relationship
with a married woman living in Delhi. The wife in fact hired a spy to probe the affair. She
complained to the DGP who set up a departmental inquiry. The husband was suspended during
the inquiry and said he had to face humiliation among his colleagues and seniors. Later, he
came out clean in the final inquiry; but the department stopped increments and imposed a
censure entry. He had to appeal in UP Service Tribunal which quashed the department's
punishment. The wife meanwhile scuffled with him and also threatened to consume poison at
times, he alleged. Under such circumstances, the marriage has become irretrievable and there
was no solution other than divorce, he pleaded. Reiterating the allegations of her husband's
illicit relationship with a woman, it was contended by the wife that during departmental inquiry,
the phone call details were collected which revealed that he used to talk for long with the
woman, even late in the night. He would often be out of the house the whole night. This clearly
indicated the allegations, she said. It was argued on behalf of the husband that even if it is
accepted that he talked to some woman on phone, it cannot be inferred that they had developed
illicit relationship and therefore to humiliate and harass him on the basis of suspicion could not
be justified.

SUPREME COURT’S RULING ON MENTAL CRUELTY NOT A LICENSE TO EXTRA-

MARITAL AFFAIRS

Notions of mental cruelty are highly subjective and vary among different sections of society. A
Bench of the Supreme Court comprising Justices Dipak Misra and S J Mukhopadhaya had to
grapple with this problem in the context of a wife’s complaint of cruelty against her husband
because of his extra-marital affair, which eventually led to her committing suicide. The Bench
referred to its previous judgment which held that “the mere fact that the husband has developed
some intimacy with another, during the subsistence of marriage and failed to discharge his
marital obligations, as such would not amount to ‘cruelty’”. On the facts of the case before it, the
court ruled, “True it is, there is some evidence about the illicit relationship and even if the same
is proven, we are of the considered opinion that cruelty, as envisaged under the first limb of
Section 498A IPC, would not get attracted.

…Mere extra-marital relationship, even if proved, would be illegal and immoral… but in the
absence of some other acceptable evidence on record that can establish such high degree of
mental cruelty to drive a woman to commit suicide, Section 498A would not be attracted.”
Consequently, the husband’s conviction was set aside.

The Supreme Court’s judgment should not be misconstrued as giving a license to a husband to
indulge in extra-marital affairs. An aggrieved wife can always sue the husband for divorce on the
ground of marital infidelity. The judgment is in the context of a criminal prosecution which
involves personal liberty of a person guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution. It is realistic,
well-reasoned, balanced and heralds a salutary trend in our jurisprudence.

MENTAL ABUSE: THE SILENT KILLER

Unfortunately, mental abuse receives far less attention than physical abuse. Mental abuse can
be just as devastating as physical abuse, however, particularly in the context of an intimaterelati
onship that relies on trust and respect to function properly. Mental abuse in a marriage is one of
the most devastating forms of abuse. Mental abuse is most likely to occur when your spouse is
in a position to dominate you. In some cases this dominance is financial, such as when you are
financially dependent on your spouse. In other cases the dominance is physical; even when the
abuse is purely psychological, physical intimidation is a form of mental abuse even when actual
physical violence does not occur. In other cases, the dominance may be rooted in personality
types. An aggressive personality, for example, may find it easy to dominate you if you prefer a
passive approach to conflict resolution. Abusers are usually quite insecure people. They exhibit
a tendency to project their own shortcomings onto their spouse, and use it to justify
"punishment." Abusers tend to lack empathy for other people, and as a result, see love in terms
of possession rather than intimacy and respect. Most abusers refuse to admit that they are ever
at fault, although some abusers will respond to Criticism by making token admissions of small
shortcomings as a form of temporary tactical retreat. Life with an abuser is characterized by
constant criticism over matters of small consequence, false accusations, threats and malicious
humor. According to psychologist Steven Stosny, founder of Compassion Power in Washington,
D.C., this behavior is designed to make you feel unworthy, fearful, ashamed and mentally
unstable. The abuser, although domineering, will expect you to meet all of his emotional needs
and will often blame you for his own bad moods or emotional upsets. An abusive spouse will
seek to control your friendships, your comings and goings, your attitudes and your thoughts. He
will deliberately trigger crises and then blame you for them. He may try to confiscate your cell
phone or ATM card, or may break into your email account. If you confront him, he may insinuate
that you are dishonest, that your memory is faulty or that you are mentally ill. The first stage of
abuse is characterized by a breakdown in communication. Tension builds alongwith abusive
behavior such as threats, sarcasm, ridicule, manipulation and various forms of intimidation.
When confronted or faced with the loss of the relationship, the abuser may attempt an insincere
but tearful reconciliation, ask for forgiveness, and resume the abusive pattern shortly thereafter.
Abusive relationships are often characterized by frequent breakups and reconciliations. Mental
abuse is designed to produce feelings of low self-esteem in order to render you easier to
control. The late Dr. Janet Gerringer Woititz, author of "The New York Times" best-seller
"Adult Children of Alcoholics" and former professor of education at Montclair State University,
reports that victims of mental abuse find it difficult to trust others even after the abusive
relationship ends. Since lying to an abuser is often necessary for emotional survival, victims
may find themselves lying to others as well, even when there is no need for it. Abuse victims
often fear authority figures and suffer from indecisiveness. Victims of severe mental abuse often
exhibit symptoms of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), just as combat veterans do.

RESEARCH QUESTIONS

1. What is the Interpretation of the term Cruelty under IPC and other Personal Laws?

2. How does the Court interpret Cruelty?

3. Is the term Cruelty interpreted in the same manner in foreign nations (particularly UK and
USA)?

HYPOTHESIS
1. Cruelty is increasing against women, so there is different interpretation of the word. So as to
interpret Cruelty under India Penal Code, 1860 and under Muslim Personal Law and Hindu
Marriage Act, 1955.

2. Many laws are made but very few of them are implemented as required. The interpretation
made by the Court should be in alliance with the Legislature.

3. In India, Cruelty is increasing at increasing rate and there are very few laws which help to
overcome them. The developed countries also have laws avoiding and preventing Cruelty in
their nations. That difference would help to bring out some solutions to overcome the lacuna in
our Laws. While UK & USA have considered marital rape as a form of Cruelty the Legislature
and Judiciary of India as of now have not even accepted the concept. This irrationality has led to
gross injustice to the parties involved in marital suits in the recent past.

MODE OF CITATION

Mode of citation adopted in this research paper is the Bluebook, 19th Edition.

has been added to the Indian Evidence Act to raise presumption regarding abetment of suicide
by married woman. The main objective of section 498-A of I.P.C is to protect a woman who
is being harassed by her husband or relatives of husband. Section 113-A of Indian Evidence
Act, reads as follows: Sec. 113-A, Presumption as to dowry death- When the question is
whether a person has committed the dowry death of a woman and it is shown that soon before
her death such woman has been subjected by such person to cruelty or harassment for, or in
connection with, any demand for dowry, the Court shall presume that such person had caused
the dowry death. Explanation-

For the purpose of this section ‘dowry death’ shall have the same meaning as in

section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860).The object for which section 498A IPC was
introduced is amply reflected in the Statement of Objects and Reasons while enacting Criminal
Law (Second Amendment) Act No. 46 of 1983. As clearly stated therein the increase in number
of dowry deaths is a matter of serious concern. The extent of the evil has been commented
upon by the Joint Committee of the Houses to examine the work of the Dowry Prohibition Act,
1961. In some of cases, cruelty of the husband and the relatives of the husband which
culminate in suicide by or murder of the helpless woman concerned, which constitute only a
small fraction involving such cruelty. Therefore, it was

proposed to amend IPC, the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short ‘the Cr.P.C’) and the

Evidence Act suitably to deal effectively not only with cases of dowry deaths but also cases of
cruelty to married women by the husband, in-laws and relatives. The avowed object is to
combat the menace of dowry death and cruelty. The act of harassment would amount to cruelty
for the purpose of this section. Drinking and late coming habits of the husband coupled with
beating and demanding dowry have been taken to amount to cruelty within the meaning of this
section, but this section has been held not to include husband who merely drinks as a matter of
routine and comes home late . In a case before Supreme Court it was observed that this section
has given a new dimension to the concept of Ratanlal & Dhirajlal, The Indian Evidence Act,
1872, 560(21st ed. 2009)

Sushil Kumar Sharma vs. Union Of India, JT 2005(6) SC266

Jagdish Chander vs. State of Haryana, 1988 Cr. LJ 1048(P&H)

cruelty for the/ purposes of matrimonial remedies and that the type of conduct described here
would be relevant for proving cruelty. Meaning of Cruelty:

It was held in ‘Kaliyaperumal vs. State of Tamil Nadu’, that cruelty is a common essential in
offences under both the sections 304B and 498A of IPC. The two sections are not mutually
inclusive but both are distinct offences and persons acquitted under section 304B for the
offence of dowry death can be convicted for an offence under sec.498A of IPC. The meaning of
cruelty is given in explanation to section 498A. Section 304B does not contain its meaning but
the meaning of cruelty or harassment as given in section 498-A applies in section 304-B as well.
Under section 498-A of IPC cruelty by itself amounts to an offence whereas under section 304-
Bthe offence is of dowry death and the death must have occurred during the course of seven
years of marriage. But no such period is mentioned in section 498-A.

In the case of ‘Inder Raj Malik vs. Sunita Malik’, it was held that the word ‘cruelty’ is defined in
the explanation which inter alia says that harassment of a woman with a view to coerce her or
any related persons to meet any unlawful demand for any property or any valuable security is
cruelty. Kinds of cruelty covered under this section includes following:

(a) Cruelty by vexatious litigation

(b) Cruelty by deprivation and wasteful habits

(c) Cruelty by persistent demand

(d) Cruelty by extra-marital relations

(e) Harassment for non-dowry demand

(f) Cruelty by non-acceptance of baby girl

(g) Cruelty by false attacks on chastity

(h) Taking away children

The presumption of cruelty within the meaning of section 113-A, Evidence Act, 1872 also arose
making the husband guilty of abetment of suicide within the meaning of section 306 where the
husband had illicit relationship with another woman and used to beat his wife making it
a persistent cruelty within the meaning of Explanation (a) of section 498-A.Constitution Validity
of Section 498-A In ‘Inder Raj Malik and others vs. Mrs. Sumita Malik’, it was contended that this
section is ultra vires Article 14 and Article 20 (2) of the Constitution. There is the Dowry
Prohibition Act which also deals with similar types of cases; therefore, both statutes together
create a situation commonly known as double jeopardy. But Delhi High Court negatives this
contention and held that this section does not create situation for double jeopardy. Section 498-
A is distinguishable from section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act because in the latter mere
demand of dowry is punishable and existence of element of cruelty is not necessary,
whereas section 498-A deals with aggravated form of the offence. It punishes such demands of
property or valuable security from the wife or her relatives as are coupled with cruelty to her.
Hence a person can be prosecuted in respect of both the offences
punishable under section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and this section. This section gives
wide discretion to the courts in the matters of interpretation of the words occurring in the laws
and also in matters of awarding punishment. This provision is not ultra vires. It does not confer
arbitrary powers on courts. In the leading case of ‘Wazir Chand vs. State of Haryana’, involving
the death by burning of a newly married woman, the circumstances did not establish either
murder or an abetted suicide and thus in-laws escaped the jaws of section 300 and 306, but
they were caught in the web of this newly enacted section for prevention of harassment for
dowry. Not to speak of the things they are persistently demanding from the girl’s side, the fact
that a large number of articles were taken

As stated earlier many a times this victim turns into the abuser and is clearly not wronged but
instead wrongs the husband and his family for no fault of theirs. Several cases show that the
married woman takes advantage of the section and sends the respondents to jail under the
ambit of this section.

Many women rights’ groups justify the abuse of this section as being a common feature with all

other laws and that also the ratio of false cases to that of true ones as being very low. But this
still does not change the truth that there is slowly a rise in the abuse of S.498A IPC. In many
judgments, the court has not considered mental cruelty caused to the woman but has
concentrated only on any sign of physical cruelty. If evidence does not show that the woman
was physically harassed, then the court does not look into the case. What the court does is call t
he woman hyper- sensitive or of low tolerance level and having an unstable mind. Also S.498A
IPC does not only deal with dowry deaths but also any willful conduct on part of the husband
which causes harm to the wife’s ‘life, limb or health (whether mental
or physical).’To prove that cruelty was caused under Explanation a) of S.498A IPC it is not
important to show or put forth that the woman was beaten up- abusing her verbally, denying her
conjugal rights or even not speaking to her properly would fall into the ambit of mental cruelty.
Showing any mercy to abusers or giving them the ‘benefit of doubt’ when some proof to torture
at their hands is present is completely wrong. Like in the case of Ashok Batra & Ors vs.State
even though letters of the deceased stating that harassment had taken place was present, not
treating them as strong evidence and giving the appellants a benefit of doubt without ordering
for a further investigation into the matter is wrong. The judges have in several instances made a
very narrow interpretation of this section, considering it to be only cruelty in relation to unlawful
demands or dowry demands. In a
particular case, the court went to the extent of stating that ‘merely because her in-laws or
husband were to chastise the woman for improper or immoral conduct, it does not necessarily
amount to cruelty.’ This act of chastising the woman clearly amounts to mental cruelty,
something that the court apparently failed to notice. Here, considering the woman to be a hyper-
sensitive woman not used to usual wear and tear of social life is completely erroneous. In the
case of BommaIlaiah v State of AP the husband of the complainant tortured the
woman physically by forcing his wife to have sexual intercourse with him. He inserted his fingers
and a stick in her vagina, causing severe pains and bleeding but the court found the husband of
this woman guilty only under S. 325 IPC and not S, 498A IPC. Why? Her life both physically and
mentally was at risk. Didn’t the court notice this?

The court has in another case not punished the guilty under S.498A IPC even though medical
reports clearly showed that the death was homicidal by throttling. This was simply because
according to the court, even though there were dowry demands in the past, the court felt
that proximity of the death to be caused due to such a demand was unlikely. Who decides this?
proximity? The cause and its effect on the woman’s health or life may be profound and even
cause her mental unrest at a later stage. While on the on hand, women’s emancipation is the
need of the hour and prevention of ever increasing dowry deaths and harassment needs to be
stopped, it is also clearly noticed that women today are still tortured and often the court, being
the ultimate savior also does not come to the rescue to protect these women. Misuse of Section
498 A in Modern World: A violation of this section, its goals and its aims is on the rise with the
woman frivolously making false allegations against their husbands with the purpose of getting
rid of them or simply hurting the family. The abuse of this section is rapidly increasing and the
women often well- educated know that this section is both cognizable and non-bailable and
impromptu works on the complaint of the woman and placing the man behind bars.

U.SubbaRao &Ors v State of Karnataka II (2003) DMC 102; Umesh Kumar Shah &Ors v State
of BiharI (2004) DMC 260 II (2003) DMC 461

RavinderBhagwanTodkar&Ors v State of Maharashtra &Ors I (2004) DMC 791 (DB)

Like in the case of Savitri Devi v Ramesh Chand &Ors, the court held clearly that there was a
misuse and exploitation of the provisions to such an extent that it was hitting at the foundation of
marriage itself and proved to be not so good for health of society at large. The court believed
that authorities and lawmakers had to review the situation and legal provisions to prevent such
from taking place. This section was made keeping in mind protection of the married woman from
unscrupulous husbands but is clearly misused by few women and again this is strictly
condemned in Saritha v R. Ramachandran where the court did notice that the reverse trend and
asked the law Commission and Parliament to make the offence a non-cognizable and bailable
one. It is been a duty of the court to condemn wrongdoings and protect the victim but what
happens when the victim turns into the abuser? What remedy does the husband have here? On
this ground, the woman gets to divorce her husband and re-marry or even gain money in the
form of compensation. Many women rights’ groups go against the idea of making the offence a
non-cognizable
and bailable one thinking that this gives the accused a chance to escape conviction. But what th
is would do is that it would give a fair chance to the man and above all help meet the ends
of justice. Justice must protect
the weaker and ensure that the wronged is given a chance to claim back his/her due. When
women accuse their husbands under S.498A IPC by making the offence non-bailable and
cognizable, if the man is innocent he does

not get a chance quickly to get justice and ‘justice delayed is justice denied’. Therefore, the
lawmakers must suggest some way of making this

section non-biased to any individual such that the guilty is punished and the person wronged is
given justice.

The position of the women in India is still bad. They still need rights to alleviate themselves in
society but many a times fail to notice others’ rights as long as their rights are ensured. The
educated woman of today must agree with the mantra of equality and demand the same but the
trend is slowly getting reversed. Women are taking due advantage of the fact that they are
referred to as the ‘weaker sex’ and on the foundation of rights ensured to them are violating
others’ rights.

MARITAL CRUELTY UNDER THE HINDU MARRIAGE ACT 1955

Under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, as enacted originally, though cruelty was one of the
grounds for obtaining judicial separation but it was not a ground for obtaining divorce. The word
cruelty was not defined in the Act but in Section 10 which dealt with judicial separation the word
cruelty was used in a restricting sense because it was provided that either party to a marriage
may present petition praying for a decree for judicial separation on the ground that the
other party has treated the petitioner with such cruelty as to cause a reasonable apprehension i
n themind of the petitioner that it will be harmful or injurious for the petitioner to live with the
other party. Section 13 of the Act deals with divorce. As enacted originally
it did not have cruelty as one of the grounds for seeking divorce. The Legislature of Uttar
Pradesh wished to include cruelty also as a ground for divorce and with that view in mind by its
Act No.13 of 1962, Section13 of the Hindu Marriage Act was amended to Include cruelty as a
ground for divorce. The amendment was to the effect that in sub-section (1) of Section 13, after
clause (a), clause (i-a)was inserted as under: "(i-a)- has persistently or repeatedly treated the
petitioner with such cruelty as to cause reasonable apprehension in the mind of the petitioner
that it will be harmful or injurious for the petitioner to live with the other party, or" This ground
was almost similar to the ground of cruelty under Section 10(1 ) (b) for judicial separation but
one distinction was made and that was that the words "persistently or repeatedly" were added.
By this addition cruelty as aground for divorce was made stricter than what it was for judicial
separation. After the aforesaid amendment in 1976, now the ground of cruelty for judicial
separation as well as for divorce became as under:"(i) has, after the solemnization of the
marriage, treated the petitioner with cruelty;"It may be seen that by the said amendment the
Parliament, in fact, has deleted the words ''as to cause a reasonable apprehension in the mind
of the petitioner that it will be harmful or injurious for the petitioner to live with the other party". In
doing so the intention of the Parliament appears to be that it did not wish to define the legal
conception of cruelty and the kind and degree of cruelty necessary to amount to a matrimonial
misconduct giving a right to the other spouse
to bring a petition for judicial separation or for divorce. Parliament appears to have avoided the
danger of any attempt at giving a comprehensive or inclusive or exclusive definition of 'cruelty
‘and left it for the Judge- made-Laws. As such the matter is now left to the courts to determine
on the facts and circumstances of the case whether the conduct amounts to cruelty or not.
Cruelty contemplated by the aforesaid clause may be both physical and mental. If it is physical
the court should have no problem to determine it because it is a question of fact and degree. It
is the mental cruelty which may pose a problem and may present difficulty with the courts. Prior
to the amendment made in Section 10 of the Hindu Marriage Act, , the concept of cruelty, as it
was stated in the old Section 10 (I) (b), was critically examined by the Supreme Court in
Dastane v.Dastane, A.I.R. 1975 SC 1534. It was therein observed that the enquiry in any case
covered by that provision had to be whether the conduct charged as cruelty is of such a
character as to cause in the mind of the petitioner a reasonable apprehension that it will be
harmful or injurious for the petitioner to live with the respondent. It was also pointed out that it
was not necessary, as under the English Law, that the cruelty must be of such a character as to
cause danger to life, limb or health or to give rise to the reasonable apprehension of such a
danger, though, of course its being harmful or Injurious to health, reputation, working character
or the like, would be an important consideration in determining whether the conduct of the
respondent amounted to cruelty. What was required was that the petitioner must prove that the
respondent has treated the petitioner with such cruelty as to cause reasonable apprehension in
the mind of the petitioner that it will be harmful or injurious for the petitioner to live with the
respondent. Now after the amendment in Sections 10 and 13 made by the Parliament in the
year 1976, cruelty simply has been made a ground for judicial separation and for divorce without
putting any statutory rider. There is now no requirement of law that the party seeking divorce on
the ground of cruelty must prove that the respondent had persistently and repeatedly treated the
petitioner with cruelty. Further, the petitioner has also not to prove that he/she was treated with
such cruelty as to cause a reasonable apprehension in his/her mind that it II be harmful or
injurious to him/her to live with the other party. Now the scheme appears to be to liberalize the
provisions relating to judicial separation and divorce. In the statement of Objects and Reasons
of the Marriage Laws (Amendment) Act, 1976 also, the object was stated to be so. It may not
be possible for the courts to define mental cruelty exhaustively can broadly be defined as thatco
nduct 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. In other words, mental cruelty must be of such a
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 in with such conduct and
continue to live with the other party. Now mental cruelty need not be proved to be such as to
cause danger to the health, limb or life of the petitioner. Cruelty should be of the type which will
satisfy the conscience of the Court that the relationship between the parties had deteriorated to
such an extent that it has become impossible for them to live together without mental agony,
torture or distress. The following are some of the conducts which have been held to constitute
mental cruelty-demand of dowry by the husband's parents with the support of the husband, wife
abusing the husband and his parents in foul language and picking up quarrels, heavy
drunkenness or addiction to drugs resulting in intemperate and violent behavior and acts
tending to Injure the health, wife not coming to see her husband in the hospital who was
seriously injured husband having a love affair with another woman and keeping her in the same
house, husband impotent qua his wife, wife stating that her husband may be killed in an
accident so that she may get insurance money constant insults abuses and accusations of
adulterous character which make married life impossible. Mere allegations and counter
allegations without proof thereof
have been held to have constituted cruelty, as it was found that the marriage after such allegatio
nscould not in any circumstance be continued any further. The signal of the Supreme Court
appears to be that while dealing with allegation of cruelty as aground for divorce the courts
should have in their mind that the petitioner has to prove that the respondent had behaved in
such a way that the petitioner cannot reasonably be expected to live with the other. In
construing such behavior to be cruelty within the meaning of Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage
Act, the courts will have to look into each and every case having regard to the facts and
circumstances of that case. Social status and educational level of the parties, the society they
move In, the possibility or otherwise of the parties ever living together and all other relevant
facts and circumstances will also have to be seen. In very exceptional cases divorce
may be granted on mere accusations and allegations but regard must be had to the context in w
hichthey have been made. Absence of Intention should not make any difference in the case, If
by ordinary sense In human affairs, the act complained of, could otherwise be regarded as
cruelty.

COMPARATIVE STUDY- UNITED STATES AND UNITED KINGDOM

Cruelty is cause for divorce in all states except North Carolina, Maryland and Virginia. It is also
not recognized in the District of Columbia. Statues employ varying language to describe cruelty.

For instance, the New York divorce statute provides “cruel and inhuman treatment”. Under the

Minnesota statute also it was earlier described as “cruel and inhuman treatment.” The majority
of the statutes use the term “extreme cruelty.”

It has been recognized that no exact definition of “legal cruelty” can be given and the courts
have made no attempt to define it precisely. The concept of cruelty has been developed by
judicial decisions. It has been changing from time to time. The generally accepted principle laid
down by the courts is that when the legislature made “cruelty” a ground for divorce without
further defining the term, it must be understood by the law as enunciated by the ecclesiastical
courts. Cruelty was designated by such courts as “Saevitia” for the grant of a degree of judicial
separation. The laws relating to cruelty in United States has travelled on the same lines on the
same lines on which it has been developed by the English courts. The legal standard of cruelty
was laid down in leading case of Russell v. Russell. It was held in that case that conduct must
be of such a character as to cause injury to body, health or mind or which raises a reasonable
apprehension of such injury to body and health. This has been the general standard which also
found favor in American jurisprudence. As observed by Lord Penzance: The essential features
of cruelty are similar. There must be actual violence of such character as to endanger personal
health or safety or there must be a reasonable apprehension of it. The court, has Lord Stowell
once said, has never been driven off this ground. The extent or limits of cruelty as laid down in
Evans v. Evans has been approved and followed by the American courts. It was observed in
that case: Mere austerity of temper, petulance of manner, rudeness of language, a want of civil
attention and accommodation, even occasional sallies of passion, if they do not threaten bodily
harm, do not amount to legal cruelty: they are high moral offences in the marriage state
undoubtedly, not innocent surely in any state of life, but they still are not that cruelty against
which the law can relieve. In theory, American law too does not consider mere incompatibility of
temperament or trivial causes or even marital wrongdoings which make life of the spouses
unhappy as constituting cruelty. Religious, social, racial or political differences which fall below
the standard of “legal cruelty” are not recognized as causes for separation. Various theories
were developed by English courts such as the “aiming at” theory, the “protection” theory and the
rule of “wear and tear” of conjugal life, to limit the concept of cruelty or contain it within legal
bounds. All these theories have been engrafted without reluctance in the American law of
divorce. Changes in the concept of cruelty were bound to occur with the exigencies of time.
What could not have been, a hundred years ago, regarded as cruelty might be regarded as
cruelty in
the present day. Social changes, growth of equality of sexes have to a large extent expanded th
econcept of legal cruelty. A cursory glance over the law reports would reveal the extent the
concept has undergone radical change. From refusal to speak to the other spouse to a threat to
commit suicide, and from denial of sexual intercourse to refusal to have sexual intercourse
without contraceptives have been held to amount to cruelty. In fact a Clark states: One further
influence in the direction of expanding cruelty comes from a change in the underlying policy. A
few courts today explicitly that the purpose to be served by making cruelty a ground for divorce
is not to protect the plaintiff, but to enable the court to dissolve the marriages which have so far
deteriorated that they no longer serve the interest of the parties or of the society. Since cruelty
of mental cruelty covers a wide range of matrimonial misconduct or wrongdoings, this ground
seems to have become most popular. Further there is much scope for the parties to obtain
consensual divorce by alleging cruelty. The only difference, probably, if any, when it comes to
legal cruelty in United Kingdom and the United States is that the latter, unlike the former one,
has a separate legislature for each state of the country with some minor variations where as in
United Kingdom, all of the nations contained therein follow a uniform code of procedure.

Some of the examples of legal cruelty in the States are as follows: District of Columbia: legal
separation from bed and board may be granted for cruelty: Provided, that where a final decree
of divorce from bed and board has been granted and the separation of the parties has continues
for two years since the date of such decree, the same may be enlarged into a decree of
absolute divorce from the bond of matrimony upon the application of the innocent spouse.
Hawaii: divorce may be granted for extreme cruelty, or when either party is guilty toward the
other of such cruel treatment, neglect or personal indignities, though not amounting to physical
cruelty, continued over a course of not less than sixty days, as to render the life of the
other burdensome and intolerable and their further living together insupportable Kentucky: the
provisions regarding divorce for cruelty are now applicable to the conduct of either husband or
wife. West Virginia: Divorce from the bond of matrimony may be decreed for cruel or inhuman
treatment, or reasonable apprehension of bodily hurt, and a charge of prostitution made by the
husband against the wife falsely shall be deemed cruel treatment.
CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTIONS

With the passage of time, the concept of cruelty has been grossly misused by the Indian
Judiciary, for no apparent fault of theirs. Judiciary is after all bound by the legal
framework provided by the Legislature.
The mere fact that our nation has numerous criminal and personalacts, all of which expressly
provide for cruelty as a valid ground for divorce, does not suffice. The unfortunate part is that
none of them provide for a strict exhaustive interpretation for the meaning of the term cruelty.
Apart from the Indian Penal Code which is the supreme substantive law regarding crimes, there
are way too many personal laws which the court is mandated to take into consideration and with
the increasing number of contradictions among the two, the Judiciary is in a soup as to which
law will prevail, and this results more often than not, in injustice. The Court and Legislature have
to make changes if the laws of matrimonial cruelty are to be of any deterrence. Looking into the
recent observations and the increase in the misuse of this Section, there should be certain
amendments which should be brought up in this law:1. Role of Women NGOs: These
organizations should investigate complaint properly without any bias towards the woman
keeping in mind that the law is being misused largely to harass more women in husband’s
family. They should not encourage any woman to file a criminal case against her in-laws for
trivial matters. Foreign Women Organizations should also take responsibility of not allowing for
complaint to be registered against NRI’s just to harass and extort huge amount of money from
them. These organizations should also conduct survey/research on the misuse of the act and
should educate people about its consequences. If these organizations are found to be assisting
in filing false complaints, then they should be made liable for prosecution in the country where
they are functioning.2. Family Counseling Centers: Numerous cases of men being harassed by
wife or/and in-laws have come to light from different parts of the country. As of now there is no
organization, which can really help these harassed men and his family members, to listen their
side of the story
and put their point of view in front of the government. Need of the hour is to create familycounse
ling centers across the country to help those aggrieved families.

3. Time bound Investigation and Trial: A speedy trial of 498(a) cases will not only ensure justice
for the innocents that have been implicated in false charges, it will also lead to prompt redressal
of the grievances of real dowry victims .The reduction in false cases will also reduce the burden
on judiciary and expedite the processing of real cases.4. Definition of Mental Cruelty: Mental
cruelty has been vaguely defined in the act, which leaves scope of misuse. This should be
clearly elaborated to remove loopholes in the law. There should be provision for men also to file
a case for mental cruelty by his wife.5. Investigation by Civil authorities: The investigation into
these offences be carried out by civil authorities and only after his/her finding as to the
commission of the offence, cognizance should be taken. The government should create
awareness among officers about its misuse.6. Bailable: The main reason of 498a being misused
to harass innocent is its non-bailable nature. This section should be made bailable to prevent
innocent old parents, pregnant sisters, and school going children from languishing in custody for
weeks without any fault of them.7. Compoundable: Once FIR has been registered it becomes
impossible to withdraw the case even if wife realizes that she has done a blunder and wants to
come back to her matrimonial home. To save institution of marriage this should be made
compoundable. Moreover, in the scenario where the couple decides to end the marriage by
mutual divorce, continuation of criminal proceedings hamper their life.8. Arrest Warrants: Arrest
warrant should be issued only against the main accused and only after cognizance has been
taken. Husband family members should not be arrested.9. Penalty for making false accusation:
Whenever any court comes to the conclusion that the allegations made regarding commission
of offence under section 498a IPC are unfound, stringent action should be taken against
persons making the allegations. This would discourage persons from coming to courts with
unclean hands and ulterior motives. Criminal charges should
be brought against all authorities that are collaborating with falsely accusing women and their pa
rental families.10. Court Proceedings: Physical appearance of the accused on hearing should
be waved or kept low to avoid hassles in appearing to the court, especially for NRIs. The court
should not ask to surrender passport of the husband and his family which could cost job of the
husband and his family members.11. Registration of Marriage and Gifts Exchanged: The
registration of marriages should be made compulsory along with the requirement that the couple
make a joint declaration regarding the gifts exchanged during marriage.12. Punish Dowry
Givers: If the complainant admits giving dowry in the complaint, the courts should take
cognizance of the same and initiate proceedings against them under the relevant sections of the
Dowry Prohibition Act.13. Penalize corrupt Investigation Officers: If it is apparent to the court
that a fair investigation has not been conducted by the investigation officer, and that the
husband and his family have been charge-sheeted without proper verification of the complaint,
the investigation officer should be penalized for gross negligence of duty.14. NRI Issues :
Unless they are proven to be guilty after the due judicial process, NRIs should be a given a fair
chance to justice by assuring them of the following -a) Permission to return to country of
employment b) No impoundment/revocation of passport and no Interpol Red Corner Notices. c)
No unnecessary arrests d) Expeditious investigation and trial15. Gender Neutral: Everyone
should have equal rights and responsibilities, irrespective of gender. In the current social
context, there should be similar laws to protect harassed husband and his family members from
an unscrupulous wife.

This Section only provides for the remedy to woman only and these days it is being used as a
‘brahamastra’ by the woman. It is a highly debatable issue these days, if this problem is not
solved by legislation it may become a bane for the society. People’s trust over the judiciary will
come to an end. So it’s high time that this Section be amended and some changes like
mentioned above should be brought up in this law.

ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY

CASES Sushil Kumar Sharma v. Union Of India And Ors, JT 2005 (6) SC 266

In this case, a Petition was filed under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, 1950 praying to
declare Section 498A of Indian Penal Code, 1860 to be unconstitutional and ultra vires in the
alternative to formulate guidelines so that innocent persons are victimized by
unscrupulous persons making false accusations. “The object of the provision is prevention of
the dowry menace. But as has been rightly contented by the petitioner that many instances
have come to light where the complaints are not bonafide and have been filed with oblique
motive. In such cases acquittal of the accused does not in all cases wipe out the ignominy
suffered during and prior to trial”.

Prayer has been made to direct investigation by the Central Bureau of Investigation (in short the
`CBI') in certain matters where the petitioner is arrayed as an accused. We do not find any
substance in this plea. If the petitioner wants to prove his innocence, he can do so in the trial, if
held. The Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of.

Jadish Chander vs. State of Haryana, 1988 Cr. LJ 1048(P&H)

The act of harassment would amount to cruelty for the purpose of this section. Drinking and late
coming habits of the husband coupled with beating and demanding dowry have been taken to
amount to cruelty within the meaning of this section, but this section has been held not to
include a husband who merely drinks as a matter of routine and comes home late. As per
prosecution evidence, Mst. Savitri Devi(deceased) was married to the appellant in the year
1980. After about four years of this marriage, she was brought to Civil Hospital Rohtak at about
2.30 a.m. on 31st July, 1984 and a ruqa Ex. PK was sent by the doctor at 3.30 a.m. to the IP
charge, Police Post, Medical College, Rohtak. At about 7.10 a.m. the same day, she
succumbed to her injuries and another ruqa (sic). PL was sent by the doctor to the said police
Post. On 3rd Aug., 1984, statement of Kashmiri Lal, son of Aru Singh Arora, resident of 280,
Ward No.12, Mohalla Kassiwala, Hissar, was recorded and the same is Ex. PE. According to
this statement the prosecution story was that Kashmiri Lal had three brothers, the eldest of them
being Nand Kishore, the one younger to him was Bhagwan Dass and the next was Hukam
Chand. Mst. Savitri Devi was pregnant for the last about 6/7 months. The appellant used to take
liquor daily and harass her and give her beatings. She complained to Kashmiri Lal and his
brothers about this several times and they tried to prevail upon the appellant and his father but
all in vain. It was also learnt that Savitri Devi was being harassed on account of inadequate
dowry. After coming to the conclusion that the appellant was not guilty Under Section 302, IPC,
he could not record the conviction under Section 306, IPC. It has been repeatedly held by this
Court that harassment or use of hot words against the deceased where after she committed
suicide does not amount to abetment and, therefore, no offence was made out Under Section
306 IPC. It was also revealed that she did not herself put her on fire but had been burnt. In this
case the appeal was accepted and the appellate was acquitted of his charges.

Kaliyaperumal vs. State of Tamil Nadu, 2004 (9) SCC 157

The appellants who were found guilty of offences punishable under Section 304B and Section
498A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 by the Assistant Sessions Judge, Nagapattinam,
unsuccessfully challenged the conviction before the Madras High Court. By the impugned
judgment the High Court only reduced the sentence from nine years to seven years for the
offence punishable under Section 304B IPC but confirmed the sentence five years as imposed
in respect of offences punishable under Section 498A, on the allegation that Devasena
committed suicide because of the cruelty and tortures perpetuated by the appellants who were
her father-in-law and mother-in-law respectively along with husband Ashok Kumar. The appeal
is allowed to the extent indicated above so far as accused Muthulakshmi is concerned, but fails
so far as accused-appellant Kaliyaperumal is concerned.

Inder Raj Malik vs. Sunita Malik, 1986 (92) CRLJ 1510

One petition registered as Criminal Misc. (Main) 979185 was filed by Inder Raj Malik and three
others against an order of Shri R. K. Jain, Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi. That order was
passed on a complaint of Smt. order, the learned magistrate directed the summoning of the
petitioners in respect of commission of an Suntia Malik.

It was clear from the authorities that the High Court can interfere only when either the complaint
does not disclose the essential ingredients of any offence or there is no evidence to support
those allegations. The allegations of the complainant are that she was being continuously
threatened that her son would be taken away unless she met the demands of the accused by
way of compelling her parents to sell their property in Hauz Qazi. Prima facie such threats
come within the purview of section 498-A Indian Penal Code which says that when the husband
or the relative of a husband of a woman subject such woman to cruelty shall be punished with
imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also bailable to fine. The
word 'cruelty' is defined in the Explanation which, inter alia, says that harassment of a woman
with a view to coerce her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for
any property or valuable security is cruelty.

It was held that the word ‘cruelty’ is defined in the explanation which inter alia says that
harassment of a woman with a view to coerce her or any related persons to meet any unlawful
demand for any property or any valuable security is cruelty.

Ram Kishan Jain &Ors v State of Madhya Pradesh, II (2000) DMC 628

Appellants Ramkishan, Ramesh and Suresh have been convicted under Section 498A, I.P.C.
and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for three years and to a fine of Rs. 1,500/- each.
Appellant Suresh has also been -convicted under Section 324, I.P.C. and sentenced to rigorous
imprisonment for two years. Appellants Ramkishan, Ramesh, Meera Jain, and Pinki have been
convicted under Section 324/34, I.P.C.and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for two years
each.Sunita (P.W. 1) was married to accused Suresh Jain on 22.2.1995. The couple lived
happily for about four months at Raipur. There was unhappiness in the next six months and
Sunita left her matrimonial home with her father on 30.11.1995. The prosecution case was that
after four months of the marriage the accused persons started harassing and ill-treating Sunita.
They asked her to bring a Yamaha motor-cycle and a colour T. V. as dowry. They also asked
her to bring Rs. 40,000/- from her father so that her husband may commence cloth business
with that money. Sunita and her father Sajama Agawam expressed their inability to meet such a
demand. Thereafter the accused persons started torturing Sunita. They attempted to hang her,
administer calm pose tablets to her and her husband cut arteries of her both the hands near the
wrist joint with a blade. These injuries started bleeding. At that time accused Ramesh and
Ramkishan had caught hold of her hands and accused Meera Jain and Pinki were holding her
legs. Her husband uttered that she would die on account of bleeding from these arteries. The
incident of cutting of the arteries was of 30.11.1995. The accused persons pleaded not guilty.
Their defence was that Sunita and her father are trying to black-mail them. They never
demanded any dowry or money. They never harassed or ill-treated Sunita. The Trial Court after
an exhaustive and critical analysis of the evidence on record held that Sunita was subjected to
cruelty by appellants Ramkishan, Ramesh and Suresh and all the appellants had formed
common intention to cause hurt to her and in furtherance of their common intention Suresh
caused injuries to Sunita. The sentence of rigorous imprisonment of three years imposed upon
appellants Ramkishan and Ramesh for the offence punishable under Section 498A, I.P.C. was
reduced from three years to two years. With this modification in the sentence the appeal was
dismissed

ARTICLES

Ravi Sisodiya,

Suspecting Husband of Extra-

Marital Affair “Cruelty”:Court,

The Times of India, November 24, 2014 at Lucknow

This Article states about the couple, which was married in Pratapgarh on January 29, 1996. The
husband was serving in Reserve Bank of India at the time of marriage. Later, he was selected in
PPS and awarded President's Medal for eliminating Nirbhay Gujar Gang in an encounter. The
couple had a daughter on July 28, 1997. However, fissures emerged in the relationship and the
couple went apart in April 2006.The husband had alleged in his divorce petition that his wife
had been physically and mentally harassing him and due to this, it had become impossible for
him to linger the relationship. Among other allegations, his wife had been suspecting that he
was having an illicit relationship with a married woman living in Delhi. The wife in fact hired a
spy to probe the affair. She complained to the DGP who set up a departmental inquiry. The
husband was suspended during the inquiry and said he had to face humiliation among his
colleagues and seniors. Later, he came out clean in the final inquiry, but the department
stopped increments and imposed a censure entry. He had to appeal in UP Service Tribunal
which quashed the department's punishment. The wife meanwhile scuffled with him and also
threatened to consume poison at times, he alleged. Under such circumstances, the marriage
has become irretrievable and there was no solution other than divorce, he pleaded. The bench
observed that it tried hard to settle the matter amicably through compromise and also referred
the case to its Mediation Centre, but the couple did not agree to resolve the dispute. It was
argued on behalf of the husband that even if it is accepted that he talked to some woman
on phone, it cannot be inferred that they had developed illicit relationship and therefore to
humiliate and harass him on the basis of suspicion could not be justified.

Soli J Sorabjee,

SC’s Ruling on Mental Cruelty Not A License To Extra Marital Affairs,

TheNew Indian Express, February 22, 2015

The author says that notions of mental cruelty are highly subjective and vary among different
sections of society. He refers to the problem in the context of a wife’s complaint of cruelty
against her husband because of his extra-marital affair, which eventually led to her committing
suicide. He claims that the Supreme Court’s judgment should not be misconstrued as giving a
licence to a husband to indulge in extra-marital affairs. An aggrieved wife can always sue the
husband for divorce on the ground of marital infidelity. According to him, prima facie, the
government’s action is an instance of insidious pre-censorship. Our Supreme Court in its
celebrated decision on Maneka Gandhi has categorically ruled that the fundamental rights of
freedom of expression can be exercised in India and also abroad. There is no territorial
limitation to this fundamental right which has been frowned upon by our Supreme Court in its
previous judgments.

He refuses to believe that our country’s human rights record is so fragile that it would suffer

incalculable damage on account of the testimony of a Green Peace activist. If her testimony is
factually ill-founded and baseless, the government can refute it strongly with all the resources at
its command rather than resort to measures usually adopted by totalitarian states and which are
unbecoming of our democratic liberal state.

David Carnes,

Mental Abuse: The Lethal Yet Invisible Phenomena,

Livestrong.com,http://www.livestrong.com/article/138056-what-is-mental-abuse-marriage/.(last
updated May 16, 2016.)

The author here is trying to put emphasis on the mental cruelty. Mental cruelty is the outcome of
a bad relationship. Mental abuse is most likely to occur when your spouse is in a position to
dominate you. In some cases this dominance is financial, such as when you are financially
dependent on your spouse. In other cases the dominance is physical; even when the abuse
is purely psychological, physical intimidation is a form of mental abuse even when actual
physical violence does not occur. Most abusers refuse to admit that they are ever at fault,
although some abusers will respond to criticism by making token admissions of small
shortcomings as a form of temporary tactical retreat. He has given the characteristics of Abusive
Relationships. According to him, the abuser, although domineering, will expect you to meet all of
his emotional needs and will often blame you for his own bad moods or emotional upsets. An
abusive spouse will seek to control your friendships, your comings and goings, your attitudes
and your thoughts. He will deliberately trigger crises and then blame you for them. He may try to
confiscate your cell phone or ATM card, or may break into your email account. If you confront
him, he may insinuate that you are dishonest, that your memory is faulty or that you are
mentally ill.
 MENTAL CRUELTY AS A GROUND FOR DIVORCE UNDER HINDU MARRIAGE
ACT 1955
[highlight] By Sudhanshu Pathania, Student, The Law School, University of
Jammu[/highlight]
It is a well known saying that marriages are made in heaven but when they turn
into hell, parties seek a decree for divorce.
The sources of Hindu Marriage act are the Vedas and they state that one a couple is
tied in this holy institute of marriage, they can’t separate. However in the act, there is a
decree for divorce in its section 13. In here the grounds for divorce vary from adultery to
cruelty and even renouncement from the world by entering into a religious order is one
of them.
Under the Hindu Marriage act,1955 as enacted originally, though cruelty was one of the
grounds for obtaining judicial separation, yet it was not a ground for obtaining divorce.
After its amendment, cruelty was made a ground for both divorce and judicial
separation.
In the clause 13(1)(a) of Hindu marriage act, only cruelty is mentioned and not specified
whether it is mental or physical cruelty. The courts have interpreted it in a broader
prospective and said that it includes both physical and mental and we are dealing with
the latter here.
It is not possible to define mental cruelty exhaustively. Prior to the amendment, the
Supreme Court examined this concept in the landmark case named Dastane v.
Dastane[1]. Here in it was observed that the conduct of the respondent should be such
to cause reasonable apprehension in the mind of the petitioner to live with the
respondent. It was also pointed out that unlike in England, here it is not necessary to
prove that the respondent has treated the petitioner with cruelty and reasonable
apprehension in the mind of the plaintiff shall suffice.
After the amendment, the courts were flooded with applications of divorce on the
grounds of mental cruelty and the courts were to do the tedious task of defining cruelty.
As observed from Lord Pearce[2]:
“It is impossible to give a comprehensive definition of cruelty, but when reprehensible
conduct or departure from the normal standards of conjugal kindness causes injury to
health or an apprehension of it, it is, I think, cruelty if a reasonable person, after taking
due account of the temperament and all the other particular circumstances would
consider that the conduct complained of is such that this spouse should not be called on
to endure it.”

The Supreme Court in Samar Ghosh v. Jaya Ghosh[3] tried to enumerate instances
that constituted mental cruelty. These instances were only illustrated and not
exhaustive.
They said:
(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 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 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 like situations, it may lead to mental
cruelty.
As they are only for illustrative purposes only, hence the courts have to interpret
whether there has been any mental cruelty or it is mere wear and tear of marital life.
Only grave and weighty acts on the part of the respondent constitute mental cruelty.
Following are some conducts which have been held to constitute mental cruelty.
Demand for dowry by the husband and his family is mental cruelty. Wife abusing her
husband and using foul language is mental cruelty. Not visiting husband who was
seriously ill constituted mental cruelty. Abstaining from making any sexual relation
without any probable cause constitutes cruelty.

In a case, the wife cooked food only for herself but not for her husband and the apex
court held it to constitute mental cruelty on the husband[4].

In two cases, serious allegations and counter allegations without proof thereof have
been held to have constituted cruelty, as it was found that the marriage after such
allegations could not in any circumstance be continued any further[5] [6].

Thus Lord Denning has very well said in Sheldon v. Sheldon‘ ‘[highlight]the
categories of cruelty are not closed’. Each case may be different. We deal with the
conduct of human beings who are not generally similar. Among the human
beings there is no limit to the kind of conduct which may constitute cruelty. New
type of cruelty may crop up in any case depending upon the human behaviour,
capacity or incapability to tolerate the conduct complained of. Such is the
wonderful (sic) realm of cruelty’[/highlight]

[1] AIR 1975 SC 1534

[2] 695; All ER p. 992
[3] 2007(4 )SCC511
[4] supra
[5] Smt. Chanderkala Trivedi v. Dr. S.P. Trivedi, JT 1993 (4) SC 644
[6] V. Bhagat v. Mrs.D. Bhagat, AIR 1994 SC 710
Divorce Petition by Hindu Wife on the Grounds of Cruelty

IN THE FAMILY COURT BANDRA, MUMBAI

M.J. PETITION NO. ___ of ____

Smt. ___________,

daughter of ___________,

aged _______ years, residing at ___________ Petitioner.

Versus

XYZ, son of _________,

_______ years of age,

residing at _________,

carrying on __________ business...... Respondent.

In the matter of dissolution of marriage under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1956:

And

In the matter of the Family Courts Act, 1954;

And

In the matter of Divorce of the Petitioner with the Respondent on grounds of cruelty.

TO,

THE HON''BLE PRINCIPAL JUDGE

AND OTHER JUDGES OF THIS

HON''BLE COURT.

THE HUMBLE PETITION OF

THE PETITIONER ABOVENAMED

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHEWETH:

1. That the Petitioner and the Respondent were lawfully married according to traditional Hindu Vedic
rites on the ______ day of __02 at the ______ in Mumbai. Hereto annexed and marked Exhibit 'A'
is a copy of the marriage certificate evidencing the said marriage.

2. The Petitioner and the Respondent are Hindu by birth and they continue to be so.

3. After the said marriage, the Petitioner and the Respondent cohabited and lived together at the
Petitioner's house for about six years. There were two issues out of this marriage viz. LML (son of
________ years of age) and HIJ (daughter of ___ years of age).
 4. The Petitioner states that from the month of ___ 02, the Respondent began to ill-treat the Petitioner,
and from the month of _____02, began to physically assault the Petitioner without any cause
whatsoever. For some time, the Petitioner made no complaint and underwent such ill-treatment,
hoping that the Defendant would see better sense. However, on or about ____month of 02, the
Respondent attacked the Petitioner with a stick and inflicted serious injuries leading to multiple
fractures in hand and leg of the Petitioner. The Petitioner thereupon lodged a complaint at the ____
Police Station, being complaint No. ___. The Petitioner craves leave to refer to and rely upon a
copy of the said complaint when produced.

5. The Petitioner says that as a result of the aforesaid injury inflicted on the Petitioner by the
Respondent, the Petitioner had to be hospitalized for six days. The Petitioner craves leave to refer
to and rely upon the Medical Certificate issued by Dr. ____ who treated the Petitioner at ______
Hospital.

6. The petitioner says that even thereafter, the Respondent continued to treat the Petitioner in a cruel
and violent manner. The Petitioner says that such cruelty has cause an apprehension in the mind of
the Petitioner that it will be harmful and injurious for the Petitioner to continue to live with the
respondent.

7. There is no collusion or connivance between the Petitioner and the Respondent in filing this
Petition.

8. The Petitioner is claiming alimony @ Rs. ---- per month from the Respondent.

9. No other proceedings with respect to the marriage between the Petitioner and the Respondent have
been filed in this Honorable Court or in any other Court in India.

10. The Petitioner and the Respondent were married in Mumbai and last cohabited in Mumbai within
the territorial limits of the jurisdiction to entertain, try and dispose of the present Petition.

11. The Petitioner being a lady is exempt from payment of Court fees.

12. The Petitioner will rely on documents, a list whereof is annexed hereto.

The Petitioner therefore prays:

 That this Honorable Court be pleased to decree a dissolution of the said marriage between
the Petitioner and the Respondent;

 That the Petitioner be granted alimony @ Rs. _______/- per month;

 That the Respondent be ordered and decreed to pay to the Petitioner the costs of this
Petition; and

 In the alternate to prayer (c) above, the Respondent be directed to give the Petitioner a
sum of Rs. ________/- so as to enable her to purchase suitable accommodation for herself;

 That pending the hearing and final disposal of this petition, the Respondent be directed to
provide the Petitioner with a monthly allowance of Rs. ____/- to meet her personal
expenses and the expenses of running the matrimonial home;

 For such further and other reliefs as the nature and circumstances of the case may require.

Petition drawn by:

Mr. ABC,

Advocate, Sd/- Petitioner

High Court, Mumbai.

VERIFICATION

I, ___________, the Petitioner above named, do hereby solemnly declare and say that what is contained
in paragraphs _________ to __________ is true to my knowledge and that what is state in paragraphs
_______ to _______ is stated on legal advice and I believe the same to be true.

______ day of ____02. Sd/-

Before me,

Registrar/Superintendent,