August,16,2015:The idea, the meaning and the concept of cruelty changes from time to time, varies from place to place and differs from individual to individual. It is not the same for persons situated in different economic conditions and status.Understanding Cruelty-
Section 13 of The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, provides for dissolution of a Hindu marriage by a decree of divorce on 13 grounds. One of them is cruelty.
Section 27 of The Special Marriage Act, 1954, provides for 12 grounds for divorce. One of them is cruelty.
Section 2 of The Dissolution of Muslim Marriages Act, 1939, provides for 8 grounds on which a woman married under the Muslim law is entitled to obtain a decree for dissolution of her Marriage. One of them is cruelty.
Section 32 of The Parsi Marriage and Divorce Act, 1936 , provides for 11 grounds for divorce. One of them is cruelty.
Section 10 of The Indian Divorce Act, 1869, provides for 7 grounds of dissolution of marriage of Christians. One of them is adultery coupled with cruelty.
None of these Acts, however, define as to what cruelty is.
It will be surprising to know that out of 100 cases of divorces, in 95 cases, the ground for divorce is primarily cruelty and in the majority of them the cruel conduct of the spouse 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.
By cruelty we normally think a conduct, a behaviour, an act of physical violence. The normal idea of cruelty in the common man’s mind is assaulting somebody. However cruelty as a ground for matrimonial relief is just not physical violence. Cruelty as a ground for divorce need not be physical only. It may be mental. And believe me, mental cruelty is of a worse kind than that of physical violence.
Common examples of Matrimonial Cruelty-
A wife’s conduct of :
- humiliating her husband in the presence of family members and friends,
- taunting her husband on his physical incapabilities,
- denying him access to physical relationship,
- neglect,
- coldness and insult,
- deliberately wearing clothes which her husband dislikes,
- purposely cooking food which her husband is not fond of,
- visiting her parent’s family off and on against her husband’s wishes,
- undergoing an abortion despite her husband asking her not to do so,
- threatening to commit suicide,
- refusing to do household work,
- keeping husband outside the door of house,
- complaining to husband’s employer,
- disobedience,
all these are not acts of physical violence but yet it has an effect on the husband’s mind and due to this, the husband’s health suffers and therefore these acts can be termed as cruel.
Similarly, a husband’s conduct of:
- humiliating his wife,
- calling her frigid or cold fish, making excessive sexual demands,
- comparing her with the maid servant,
- taunting her for not having any child or giving birth to female children,
- demanding dowry,
- asking her to bring money or articles from her parents,
- objecting to her visiting her parents, insulting her relatives when they visit her,
- deliberately removing all servants and making her do all household work,
- denying any medical treatment when she is ill
are also acts of mental cruelty by the husband upon the wife.
In one of the cases, the conduct of a wife abusing her husband and his family members, in her letters, in defamatory and derogatory language and accusing her husband of infidelity was considered as cruelty afflicted by her upon her husband.
In Shobha Rani v. Madhukar Reddy the Apex Court observed that the term ‘cruelty’ under the Act shall be used in reference to matrimonial duties and obligations of the person. It is the conduct of the one which is adversely affecting the other, constitutes cruelty.
Further, in the case of Savitri Pandey v. Prem Chandra Pandey the Hon’ble Supreme Court defined cruelty as treatment by one spouse towards other which manifests feelings towards her or him as to have inflicted bodily injury, or to have caused reasonable apprehension of bodily injury, suffering or to have injured health. Moreover, cruelty may be physical or mental. Mental cruelty is the conduct of other spouse which causes mental suffering or fear to the matrimonial life of the other.
The Bombay High Court has recently held , that wife attending late night party cannot be called ‘Cruelty’ to husband. Justice M.L.Tahaliyani said Socialising to some extent in the present society is permissible.” The husband had approached the court for divorce, through a second appeal, citing misbehaviour of his wife on many occasions, her frequent late night parties and outburst on smaller issues which made his life miserable.
The High Court observed that there is no evidence to come to the conclusion that on a particular date his wife was drunk or had excess liquor and had come to the house at a particular time. On the contrary, she had evidence that the Appellant was once found in a company of female friend, who was extremely drunk and she was brought at house of the Appellant because she was unable to go alone. Holding that life of husband and wife in this case is not like that of a normal life of conservative married couple as them appeared to be in the nature of socialising and were in habit of enjoying parties, the court dismissed the appeal filed by the Husband.
The Judge further held, “ The allegation on the basis of which the Appellant claims that he was subjected to cruelty by his wife, have been made by the Appellant also against his wife¬Respondent No.1. It therefore, appears that both of them were in habit of socialising and it is possible that they misunderstood each other. There is no concrete evidence that the Appellant was treated with cruelty by Respondent No.1 and therefore, he is not entitled for a decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty”
The Trial Court had found the evidence of the Appellant husband reliable and had come to the conclusion that the Appellant was treated with cruelty and therefore, he was entitled for decree of divorce. The first appellate court had set aside the Trial court judgment. It was against the appellate court judgment, the husband approached High Court, through a second appeal.
Related News-
14.7.2015 - After SC rap – Why no uniformity in Divorce Laws, Govt. wakens to amend Law READ MORE…
24.6.2015 - Divorce fact sheet- Where India stands in the World READ MORE...
Read the Full Text of the Judgment-
Wife Attending Late Night Parties is Not Cruelity to Husband Bombay HC
Links to Bare Acts at LatestLaws.in-
- Anand Marriage Act,1909
- Arya Marriage Validation Act,1937
- Commission of Sati (Prevention) Act,1987
- Dissolution of Muslim Marriages Act,1939
- Divorce Act,1869
- Dowry Prohibition Act,1961
- Family Courts Act,1984
- Foreign Marriage Act,1969
- Foreign Marriage Act,1969
- Guardians and Wards Act,1890
- Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act,1956
- Hindu Marriage Act,1955
- Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act,1956
- Hindu Succession Act,1956
- Indian and Colonial Divorce Jurisdiction Act, 1940
- Indian Christian Marriage Act,1872
- Kazis Act,1880
- Maternity Benefits Act,1961
- Matrimonial Causes (War Marriages) Act 1948
- Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act,1937
- Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act,1986
- National Commission for Women Act,1990
- Parsi Marriage and Divorce Act,1936
- Protection of Women From Domestic Violence Act,2005
- Special Marriage Act,1954
