Judicial Interpretation Of Cruelty As A Ground For Divorce

THE "SHASTRIC" Hindu law did not provide for either divorce or judicial separation in the strict sense.[1] However a husband was allowed to abandon the wife under certain special circumstances. This is not to say that shastra didn't recognise matrimonial causes, because shastras did recognise custom as a source of law even today which could override even sacred texts and divorce by custom was available in various parts of India among different Hindu communities and castes on widely differing grounds, including cruelty".[2]

But this was only one of the exceptions. There are various grounds of divorce mentioned in Section 13 of Hindu marriage Act and one such ground of divorce is cruelty. Cruelty is defined in the Black's Law Dictionary as "the intentional and malicious infliction of physical suffering upon living creatures particularly human beings or, as applied to the latter, the wanton, malicious and unnecessary infliction of pain upon the body or the feeling and emotions."[3]

The term "cruelty" is not defined by either the Hindu Marriage Act or the Divorce Act. While the Act provides provisions for divorce, it does not explicitly define the term "cruelty," which is one of the grounds for seeking dissolution of marriage. The Report of the Special Joint Committee of the Senate and House of Commons expressed the "view that a comprehensive and satisfactory definition of marital cruelty is not possible, nor is it desirable for the good reason that acceptable conduct within the home differs from time to time and from place to place and among differing classes in society. . . for the present, at least, this ground should be undefined and its administration be left to the learning, good sense, responsibility and wisdom of Canadian judges, guided as they are by the jurisprudence of our own courts and those of England."[4] These are the views of the Canadian courts.

Since the absence of a precise definition of cruelty in the Hindu Marriage Act has allowed for a broader interpretation and application of the term by the judiciary. Over the years, through various judgments, the courts have attempted to provide a comprehensive understanding of what constitutes cruelty in the context of marital relationships.

Cruelty As A Ground Of Divorce

The term "Cruelty" its meaning and scope have been elaborated upon in various other legislative acts within the Indian legal system. Earlier cruelty was not a ground of divorce but it was a ground of judicial separation. This was through the 1976 amendment done under Hindu Marriage Act it was created a ground of divorce . The Supreme Court's case law is instructive in this regard. In Shobha Rani v Madhukar Reddi[5] ,the wife alleged that the husband and his parents demanded dowry. In its ruling, the apex court emphasised that "cruelty" can have no fixed definition. The following illustrate some examples of how cruelty has been characterized and understood across different statutes:

Hindu Marriage Act, 1955: Section 13(1) of Clause (ia) of the Act includes cruelty as a ground for a divorce decree. It notes that the other party treated the petitioner with cruelty after the solemnization of the wedding.[6]

Parsi Marriage and Divorce Act, 1936: Clause (dd) of section 32 of the Act states "that the defendant has since the solemnization of marriage treated the plaintiff with cruelty or has believed in such a way as to render it in the judgment of the court improper to compel the plaintiff to live with the defendant."[7]

The Dissolution of Muslim Marriage Act, 1939: "Section 2(viii) of the Act lays down grounds for a decree for dissolution of marriage. It states that a woman married under Muslim law shall be entitled to obtain a decree for the dissolution of her marriage…. that the husband treats her with cruelty, that is to say, habitually assaults her or makes her life miserable by cruelty of conduct even if such conduct does not amount to physical ill-treatment, associates with women of evil repute or leads an infamous life, attempts to force her to lead an immoral life, disposes of her property or prevents her exercising her legal rights over it, obstructs her in the observance of her religious profession or practice, or if he has more wives than one, does not treat her equitably following the injunctions of the Quran."[8] Under the Special Marriage Act the provision for cruelty is similar with that of Hindu marriage act.

Cruelty Is Divided In Two Parts:

There are several bases for claims based on cruelty and the kind of cruelty, but they are interpreted differently by the judgements and through which they are divided into two parts:

1. Physical Cruelty
   When a spouse engages in violent behaviour that results in harm to their partner's body, limbs, or health, it is deemed to be physical cruelty. It is easier to prove the physical cruelty towards a person. The nature and degree of the physical act can be determined through the injuries. In the landmark case of Swati v. Arvind Mudgal [9]the court held that "In order to constitute physical cruelty one or two acts are more than sufficient even if the single act may be so grave and weighty that it could be satisfied the test of cruelty amounts to physical cruelty". In a landmark case Kerala High Court held that even a single instance of physical cruelty is sufficient grounds for divorce under domestic violence laws. Indian courts have consistently taken a strict stance against physical cruelty within marriages, allowing women to seek protection, compensation and even divorce on these grounds under relevant criminal and civil laws.
    
2. Mental Cruelty
   According to The Black's Law Dictionary (8th ed., 2004) it describes the term "mental cruelty" as "(without actual violence) the behavior of a spouse that endangers life, physical health, or mental health of the other spouse". The aspects of mental cruelty are evolving due to several variables such as globalization, modernity, family dynamics, education, and greater usage of social media. It is quite difficult to prove mental cruelty since its scope is broad and does not fit to any particular definition. It is left upon the discretion of the courts to decide the cases according to facts and circumstances.
    

In the landmark case of Dastane Vs Dastane [10]AIR SC 1975 1534 the Supreme Court of India for the first time recognized mental cruelty as a valid ground for divorce and also the theory of condonation of the same on the basis of Sec. 23 (1) (b) of the Hindu Marriage Act.

The SC held that the wife threatening to end her life, and verbally abusing the husband, among other acts, amounted to mental cruelty. It was observed that the inquiry has to be done whether the conduct charged as cruelty is of such a character as to cause in the mind of the petitioner a reasonable worry that it will be harmful to live with the respondent.

In the case of Samar Ghosh vs Jaya Ghosh[11]- SC , the apex court highlighted that the terms 'may' and 'can' indicate that the actions or circumstances described are potential examples of mental cruelty, but not definitive or universally applicable. Specifically, while denying sexual relations for an extended period without any physical impediment or justifiable reason could potentially constitute mental cruelty in a particular situation, it does not automatically or necessarily amount to mental cruelty in every case. The use of 'may' or 'can' highlights the fact that what qualifies as mental cruelty is not fixed or certain.

In order to determine whether a treatment qualifies as mental cruelty, one must consider the nature of the cruel treatment, the psychological effects it has on the spouse, and whether the spouse has a legitimate fear that living with the other spouse would be "harmful" or "injurious." Therefore, cruelty is ultimately a question of inference, to be determined by considering the character of the behavior and its impact on a spouse who is lodging a complaint.

The apex court in various judgements highlighted that cruelty depends upon the conduct of the party and facts and circumstances but have also highlighted certain conducts there are certain conducts which amount to cruelty like alleging someone to be of unsound mind , threat to attempt suicide, making false allegations to defame a person, refusal to have sexual intercourse, defamation.

Cruelty Against Husband

In family law, cruelty to husbands is a complicated and much disregarded problem. Although women have historically been the targets of domestic abuse, males are increasingly realizing that they can also suffer abuse inside their marriages. In order to guarantee that justice is done and the legal system is just and equitable, it is critical to address the issue of abuse against husbands. The law is intended to safeguard the rights and welfare of all parties involved.

Cruelty can take many different forms. It may be financial, mental, emotional, or even physical. Acts of aggression against the husband, such as kicking, hitting, or any other physical abuse, are considered physical cruelty. Verbal abuse, intimidation, or actions that result in trauma or psychological suffering are examples of emotional cruelty. Manipulation, gaslighting, and attempts to discredit the spouse's perception of truth or value are examples of mental cruelty. Controlling or preventing someone from accessing financial resources results in a vulnerable and economically dependent environment, which is known as financial cruelty.

However, proving cruelty can be a challenging task, as it often occurs behind closed doors and without witnesses. Many men may also be reluctant to come forward due to societal stigma, fear of not being believed, or concerns about losing custody of their children or financial support. To address the issue of cruelty against husbands, it is essential for family law to adopt a victim-centric approach.

This means creating a supportive and non-judgmental environment where men feel comfortable reporting instances of abuse without fear of repercussions. Specialized counselling and support services should be made available to help men cope with the trauma of cruelty and rebuild their lives. Furthermore, family law should consider strengthening legal protections for husbands who are victims of cruelty.

It is also important to address the issue of false accusations, as such claims can have devastating consequences for innocent parties. It is crucial to recognize that cruelty can affect individuals of any gender, and that the legal system must be equipped to protect the rights and well-being of all victims, regardless of their gender or societal perceptions.

There are several landmark cases in which it has been proven by the hon'ble courts that there are several grounds which are sufficient to prove cruelty against husband.

In the case of Suman Kapur vs Sudhir Kapur[12] , the apex court dismissed the appeal and the High Court by Decree, and the additional District Court was confirmed.

The Supreme Court ruled that a woman aborting pregnancy without her husband's knowledge and consent amounts to mental agony and grounds for divorce in this case. "Mental remorselessness is a way of looking at things. For an longer period, a feeling of deep agony, discontent, and disappointment in one life partner caused by the conduct of the other may lead to mental violence".

Shobha Rani v. Madhukar Reddy [13], where the Supreme Court of India recognized that cruelty can be inflicted by a wife upon her husband, and that such cruelty can constitute grounds for divorce. The court emphasized that cruelty is not limited to physical violence but can also encompass mental cruelty, such as persistent insults, humiliation, or attempting to disrupt the husband's life.

In the case of V. Bhagat vs D. Bhagat[14] (1994), the apex court held that the wife alleged in her written statement towards her husband was suffering from "mental problems and paranoid disorder". The wife's lawyer also levelled allegations of "lunacy" and "insanity" against the husband and his family while he was conducting a cross-examination. The court held these allegations against the husband to constitute "cruelty".

Additionally there is a case of Samar Ghosh vs Jaya Ghosh [15](2007) (Supreme Court), which deals with a matrimonial dispute between two IAS officers. The husband claimed that his wife forbade him from showing affection to their daughter (from her previous marriage) and that she took the unilateral decision to not have a child. She also didn't care about his health, wouldn't cook for him, humiliated him by asking him to leave her apartment, and wouldn't let him live with her. The husband was given a divorce by the trial court, which was upheld by the court because it determined that the wife's actions amounted to mental cruelty.

The Supreme Court decided in this case recently, Joydeep Majumdar v. Bharti Jaiswal Majumdar[16] (2021), in which the husband accused his wife of mental cruelty for accusing him of adultery and making defamatory complaints to his army superiors and other authorities, which led to a court of inquiry and negatively impacted his career. Whether or not the accusations were validated in a court of law, the judge determined that it constituted an act of mental cruelty.

Additionally in this case of Praveen Mehta v. Inderjit Mehta[17], where it was held that "Mental cruelty cannot be established by direct evidence and it is necessarily a matter of inference to be drawn from the facts and circumstances of the case." In this case the husband was treated with cruelty as within the 14 years of marriage there was no child out of the marriage and wife during the marriage resisted consummation of marriage and also concealed her ailments despite several attempts by the husband. Hence divorce was granted by court on the grounds of cruelty.

Furthermore in the case of Smt. Anita Gaur vs Sri Rajesh Gaur[18] in this case the wife Was borrowing money without the husband's knowledge or removing jewels, ornaments, or expensive items from the house are both considered harsh to the spouse. The parties' marriage is a partnership built on trust and confidence. Any behaviour on the part of either spouse that violates this trust and confidence is considered cruelty on that spouse's behalf.

Through these various judgements it can be proven that while progress has been made in acknowledging and addressing cruelty against husband within family law, there is still a need for continued education, awareness, and the development of specialized support services and legal protections for male victims of domestic abuse. By recognizing and addressing this issue, the legal system can promote gender equality and ensure that justice is served fairly and impartially, regardless of gender.

Conclusion
No one shall be subjected to torture or cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment.[19] It can be said that cruelty against anyone be it husband or wife is violation to human dignity and liberty which is protected under constitution of India. Through various judgments recently the supreme court has highlighted that the scope of cruelty is broad and it is not just limited to physical cruelty it includes mental , emotional, economic cruelty as well which is hard to prove in eyes of law. What may be cruelty for one person may not be an act of cruelty for another person , it differs from person to person and facts and circumstances.

In ancient India, cruelty was a complex and multifaceted issue that manifested in various forms, including violence, religious intolerance, and societal norms that condoned mistreatment. The concept of cruelty was prevalent in different aspects of ancient Indian society, ranging from marital relationships to religious conflicts and power dynamics.

The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, and the Special Marriage Act, 1954, have incorporated the concept of cruelty, which includes any conduct or behavior by the respondent towards the petitioner that results in physical or mental endangerment or renders it impossible for them to live with the respondent after the marriage has been solemnized.

The Indian Penal Code, 1860, also recognizes cruelty against women through Section 498A, which punishes the husband or any relative of the husband who subjects a woman to cruelty. However, there is no specific provision for cruelty against men by their wives. The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, further strengthens the legal protection for women against domestic violence, including mental cruelty.

The Supreme Court of India has consistently acknowledged the fact that men are equally susceptible to cruelty in marital situations as women, and can seek a divorce on this basis. The Court has clarified that the test to decide whether a person's behavior amounts to cruelty is not to see whether it seems cruel to a reasonable person or a person of normal sensibilities but to see what effect it would have on the aggrieved spouse who is before the court.In recent years, there has been a growing recognition of the need to address cruelty against husbands under Indian law.

The Punjab and Haryana High Court recently allowed the divorce petition of a man alleging cruelty and desertion by his wife, highlighting the fact that men can also be victims of cruelty in marital relationship.In conclusion, cruelty as a ground for divorce in India has undergone significant changes over the years, with a growing recognition of the need to protect both men and women from this harmful behavior.

The Indian judiciary has taken a nuanced approach to defining cruelty, recognizing both physical and mental cruelty as valid grounds for divorce. However, there is still a need for greater awareness and action to address the issue of cruelty in marital relationships, particularly in the context of gender equality and the protection of the rights of both men and women.

End-Notes:

1. H.L. Seth, Matrimonial Muddle in India 23 (1942); Ram Keshav Ranade, The Hindu Code 1948, A.I.R. 1949 (Jour.) 12 at 13.
2. L.D. Joshi, Khasa Family Law, part II (1929); Jim Corbett, My India 59-62 (1954)
3. Black law dictionary
4. Report of the Special Joint Committee of the Senate and House of Commons on Divorce (Canada), 13, 1967
5. Shobha Rani v. Madhukar Reddi, (1988) 1 SCC 105
6. Hindu Marriage Act 1955, s 13(1) (ia)
7. Parsi Marriage And Divorce Act 1936, s 32(dd)
8. Dissolution of Muslim Marriage Act 1939, s 2(viii)
9. Swati v. Arvind Mudgal, 2015 SCC OnLine Del 6930
10. Dastane Vs Dastane AIR SC 1975 1534
11. Samar Ghosh v. Jaya Ghosh, (2007) 4 SCC 511
12. Suman Kapur vs Sudhir Kapur (2009) 1 SCC 422
13. Shobha Rani v. Madhukar Reddi, (1988) 1 SCC 105
14. V. Bhagat vs D. Bhagat,(1994) 1 SCC 337
15. Samar Ghosh v. Jaya Ghosh, (2007) 4 SCC 511
16. Joydeep Majumdar v. Bharti Jaiswal Majumdar (2021) 3 SCC 74
17. Praveen Mehta v. Inderjit Mehta, (2002) 5 SCC 706
18. Smt. Anita Gaur vs Sri Rajesh Gaur, AIRONLINE 2020 UTR 292
19. Universal Declaration of Human Rights 1948, Art 5