What is included in cruelty under Divorce Laws

Repetitive abuse or inhumane treatment constitutes cruelty or domestic violence. It can cause emotional harm through repeated intimidation, violent language, verbal abuse, or threats of harm.

Cruelty refers to violent acts. However, a mere quarrel, petty outrageous behaviour or differences between the spouses do not come in the ambit of cruelty because this is something that is common in a day-to-day married life. Conducts that would amount to cruelty should be grave and severe in nature. Grave violence doesn’t always mean physical violence. Though physical violence is an essential factor that constitutes cruelty apart from that a continuous process of ill-treatment or mental or physical torture to either of the spouses would also amount to cruelty. 

Cruelty as Grounds for Divorce

The complexities of daily matrimonial life often lead to ambiguity and challenges in maintaining peaceful cohabitation. Although there is no exhaustive definition of cruelty, certain conditions can be identified through cases of marital abuse:

• Physical violence against the spouse.
• Affairs or adultery, especially when publicly acknowledged.
• False accusations of adultery.
• Persistent manifestations of rage, including yelling or verbal abuse.
• Demoralizing or restricting a spouse, thereby forcing dependency.
• Concealing sexually transmitted diseases acquired during marriage.
• For conduct to be considered cruelty under matrimonial law, the court examines the specific background and circumstances leading to the deterioration of the marriage.

Historical Context and Legal Framework

Initially, under the Hindu Marriage Act, of 1955, cruelty was not recognized as grounds for divorce but was applicable only in judicial separation cases. This changed with the landmark Supreme Court case of Narayan Ganesh Dastane v. Sucheta Narayan Dastane (1975), which led to the 1976 amendment incorporating cruelty as a ground for divorce. The court emphasized that each case should be judged on its specific facts, leading to the inclusion of “persistently or repeatedly” to establish cruelty.

Provisions in Indian Law

Under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), cruelty against a wife by her husband or in-laws is an offence.

498A. Husband or relative of the husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty

Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to a fine.

Explanation — For the purpose of this section, “cruelty” means—

(a) any wilful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman; or

(b) harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand

Section 85 and Section 86 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023

Section 85 and 86 respectively of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, which is to come into force with effect from 1^st July 2024.

Husband or relative of the husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty.

Section 85. whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of women, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to a fine.

Section 86 for the purpose of the section, ‘cruelty’ means

(a) any wilful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman; or

(b) harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand.”

Cruelty Under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act

This section pertains to behaviour by one spouse that causes reasonable apprehension in the other spouse’s mind, making it unsafe to continue the marital relationship.

Special Marriage Act, 1954

“Clause relating to cruelty under the act is identical with the analogous clause of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955” Section 27(d) of the act provides that the respondent has treated the plaintiff with cruelty since the solemnization of marriage.

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. Under the same provision, there is another clause that is close to physical cruelty.

Section 32 of clause (e) runs-

That the defendant since the marriage voluntarily caused grievous hurt to the plaintiff with venereal disease or, where the defendant is the husband, has compelled the wife to submit herself to prostitution”. 

Indian Divorce Act, 1869

In 2001, before the Indian Divorce (Amendment) Act, cruelty for the husband, of any kind was not a basis for divorce. Nut the cruelty of the husband combined with adultery was the basis of the wife’s divorce. The amended section of clause (x) 10 runs of the act:

Has treated the petitioner with such cruelty as to cause a reasonable apprehension in the mind of the petitioner that it would be harmful or injurious for the petitioner to live with the respondent.

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 women 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 practise, or if he has more wives than one, does not treat her equitably following the injunctions of the Quran”. Thus, cruelty is exhaustively described under Muslim Law. any husband’s activities beyond the aforementioned clauses would be protected by cruelty. If one cursorily analyses the above formulations of cruelty, it is obvious that the notion of cruelty is shifting

Relevant Case Law

Physical and Mental Cruelty

Cruelty can be categorized into physical and mental:

Physical Cruelty: Includes bodily harm, threats to life, and habitual assaults. Physical violence is one of the most common grounds for divorce and is acknowledged under various marriage laws, such as the Muslim Marriage Act, 1939, and the Parsi Marriage and Divorce Act, 1936.

Mental Cruelty: More challenging to prove, mental cruelty involves continuous mental stress or agony inflicted by one spouse on the other. Mental cruelty can manifest in various forms, such as coercion, deceit, or persistent doubt, and must be evaluated based on the specific facts of each case.

Gender Neutrality in Divorce on Grounds of Cruelty

In Mayadevi v. Jagdish Prasad (2007), the Supreme Court held that both men and women are entitled to seek divorce on grounds of mental cruelty. The case established that mental cruelty inflicted by either spouse justifies grounds for divorce.

Thus, cruelty as a ground for divorce is comprehensive and covers both physical and mental abuse, with the legal framework designed to protect the dignity and rights of individuals within matrimonial relationships.

Understanding Cruelty in Matrimonial Law Through Supreme Court Case Law

The concept of “cruelty” in matrimonial law has been elaborated upon through various Supreme Court rulings, which emphasize that cruelty does not have a fixed definition. In Shobha Rani v. Madhukar Reddi (1988), the wife alleged dowry demands by her husband and in-laws. The Supreme Court underscored that cruelty, in the context of matrimonial obligations, encompasses conduct that adversely affects the spouse. This conduct can be either mental or physical and can be intentional or unintentional. For instance, unintentionally disturbing a spouse’s sleep could be considered mental cruelty; thus, intention is not a necessary element for an act to constitute cruelty, although it can be present. Physical cruelty is generally less ambiguous and is assessed based on the facts and severity of each case.

To determine whether an act constitutes mental cruelty, courts examine the nature of the treatment, its mental impact on the spouse, and whether it causes a reasonable apprehension that continued cohabitation would be harmful or injurious. Cruelty is ultimately a matter of inference, drawn from the conduct’s nature and its effect on the aggrieved spouse. Courts must consider the spouses’ lifestyle, economic and social conditions, and the cultural and human values they prioritize.

Allegations in Legal Proceedings

Cruelty is not limited to illegal actions like dowry demands; it can also arise from defamatory allegations made during judicial proceedings. In V. Bhagat vs. D. Bhagat (1994), the wife accused her husband of mental illness and paranoid disorder in her written statement, which the court deemed as cruelty. Conversely, in Vijaykumar Ramchandra Bhate vs. Neela Vijaykumar Bhate (2003), the husband alleged his wife was unchaste and involved in an extramarital affair. Given the context of an educated Indian woman, the Supreme Court held these allegations to constitute cruelty.

Matrimonial Disputes and Cruelty

In Samar Ghosh vs. Jaya Ghosh (2007), the Supreme Court dealt with a matrimonial dispute where the husband claimed his wife made unilateral decisions, refused to cohabit, and humiliated him. The court found these actions amounted to mental cruelty and upheld the husband’s request for divorce.

In Joydeep Majumdar vs. Bharti Jaiswal Majumdar (2021), the Supreme Court ruled that a wife’s false allegations of adultery and defamatory complaints to the husband’s superiors constituted mental cruelty, impacting his career. The court noted that proving the allegations in court was not necessary to establish mental cruelty.

Evaluating Conduct as Cruelty

To judge whether conduct constitutes cruelty, courts must consider whether it renders the spouse’s life miserable, making it unreasonable to continue living together. Such conduct could involve abusive or humiliating treatment, mental anguish, or torture. The conduct must be “grave” and “weighty”; trivial irritations or normal marital wear and tear do not suffice.

In some instances, even a single emotionally draining act may amount to mental cruelty if it is sufficiently severe. For example, in Narendra vs. K. Meena (2016), the Supreme Court held that in Hindu society, a son is expected to care for his parents, and a wife cannot force him to abandon this duty without just cause. However, different circumstances, such as the parents being financially independent and the couple having agreed to live separately before marriage, might alter this assessment.

Illustrative Examples and Their Limitations

The Supreme Court’s use of terms like “may” and “can” in cases like Samar Ghosh vs. Jaya Ghosh (2007) highlights the indeterminate nature of what constitutes mental cruelty. For instance, denying sex for an extended period without a valid reason “may” amount to mental cruelty, but it will not necessarily do so in all cases. This variability underscores the need to assess each case on its individual merits and context.

Sushil Kumar Verma v. Usha, AIR 1987 Del 86

Justice Mahinder Narain of the Delhi High Court has held that aborting the foetus in the very first pregnancy by a deliberate act without the consent of the husband amounts to cruelty within the meaning of Section 13(i)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (HM Act).