Cruelty: Violence is referred to as cruelty. However, a simple argument, inconsiderate behavior, or disagreements between spouses do not fall within the definition of cruelty because they are typical of daily married life. Animal cruelty-like behavior should be significant and severe. Grave violence need not always take the form of physical assault. A sustained pattern of mistreatment or physical or mental torment of either spouse might qualify as cruelty, even if physical violence is a necessary component of cruelty.

Cruelty as a ground for divorce

The routine conditions of marriage leave couples unsure of how they can live a peaceful life together. Although there isn’t an entire list of all the circumstances that could result in a cruelty offense, if we observe a case of marital abuse in our community, we can draw some conclusions about particular circumstances like:

The husband suffered from physical violence.
Having an affair or engaging in adultery, knowing your spouse about it, and publicly accepting it.
In addition, if one of the spouses is unfoundedly suspected of an extramarital affair.
The ongoing expression of pain, wrath, yelling, or abusive behavior toward the partner.
The partner’s ability to act independently is demoralized and suppressed, and the spouse is forced into a marriage where the spouse has no choice but to trust the other.
Not revealing any information about a sexually transmitted disease while they are already married. The list keeps on.

The actions of both spouses must fall within the definition of cruelty defined in the Marriage Act. The background and circumstances that led to the couple’s desire to split must be taken into consideration by the court. The court must find out what is causing the marriage to deteriorate. In general, divorce refers to the legal dissolution of a marriage with the assistance of a lawyer and by established legislation. When one or both parties choose to separate from the other and end the current partnership, they might file for divorce. However, each state has its marriage law.

Recent Judgment

The Supreme Court has stated while issuing a woman a divorce order that what constitutes cruelty for a woman in a given situation may not be cruelty for a man and that a court must analyze a case in which a wife is seeking a divorce with a substantially more flexible and comprehensive approach.

The phrase “cruelty” in Section 13(1)(a) of the Hindu Marriage Act of 1955 has no established meaning, according to a bench of Justices Sanjiv Khanna and MM Sundresh, and as a result, the Court has a very broad discretion to apply it “liberally and contextually.” The Hindu Marriage Act of 1955 stipulates several reasons for divorce, including cruelty, in sections 13(1) and 13(1A).

The bench stated that what constitutes cruelty in one instance may not be the same in another and that it must be applied to each individual while taking into account the surrounding circumstances. “Therefore, what is cruelty against a woman in this situation is not necessarily cruelty against a man, and a relatively more flexible and comprehensive approach is needed when analyzing the case of a woman asking for a divorce. The parameters and requirements for granting a divorce at either party’s request are laid forth in Section 13(1) of the Act of 1955,” the bench stated.

The bench that rendered the decision on Wednesday took note of the argument made by attorney Dushant Parashar on behalf of the estranged woman, who was seeking a divorce on the grounds of cruelty and asserting that her husband had tainted her reputation.

Both the high court and the trial court, according to Parashar, erred by refusing to grant a divorce. The judge ruled that the case’s facts spoke for themselves. In 2002, the couple married. Following the birth of their child, they encountered bad weather. The parties’ disagreements began in 2006.

By Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act of 1961 and Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code of 1860, the appellant’s wife filed a complaint. The appellant-wife’s character had been questioned by the respondent-husband, the judgment remarked.

The bench took note of the husband’s assertion that it was his wife who had left the marital residence and his demand for a medical examination of the wife, who he said was having an affair and had given birth during the separation.

The bench noted that the high court had denied the request and that the couple had been living apart for fifteen years. The marriage is no longer valid, as fairly declared in court, and the union was dissolved without the need for a formal divorce judgment. The status quo continues while waiting for this Court’s consent, the bench declared, adding that the circumstances would undoubtedly support a divorce claim.

It claimed that in rejecting the divorce decision, the trial court and the high court took a “hyper-technical and pedantic approach.” The courts will follow the rules of equity and may take into account balancing the rights of the parties. The court must use “social context thinking” when interpreting these rules, taking into account the parties’ status and history as well as social and economic reality, according to Justice Sundresh, who represented the bench in writing the decision.

To avoid the potential of perpetuating trauma—mental and occasionally even physical trauma—on the vulnerable party, it was stated that courts must adopt an empathic and contextual construction of the facts. The courts will follow the rules of equity and may take into account balancing the rights of the parties. According to Justice Sundresh, who issued the judgment on behalf of the bench, “the court, while applying these provisions, must adopt ‘ social-context thinking,’ cognizant of the social and economic realities, and the position and background of the parties.”

The highest court ruled that courts must take into account the fact that, when couples quarrel, the home—which is supposed to be a joyful and loving place to live—becomes a source of suffering and anguish. “Although they have little to do with the breakdown of the marriage, they become the direct victims of the reported fights with the children. Particularly when the pair is at odds and doesn’t consider the psychological and mental effects it has on her/him, they suffer irreversible injury,” the report added.

-Pragati Sengar