The petitioner husband was seeking dissolution of marriage pleading cruelty against the respondent wife. Initially, ‘cruelty’ was not a ground for divorce but with the amendment in the year 1976 ‘cruelty’ was brought into force as ground for divorce although concept of cruelty has not been defined under the Act. Marriage under Hindu Law is sacramental and both the spouses have to discharge their matrimonial obligations to make their marriage successful. The ground of divorce as provided under Section 13 HMA 1955 are based on fault theory and therefore respondent must have been at fault on account of the grounds set out in the plaint, before decree can be granted in favour of the petitioner. The concept of cruelty has not been defined under Hindu Marriage Act but as the concept has evolved by way of various pronouncements. ‘Cruelty’ generally means ‘matrimonial act’ which caused pain, distress, agony, which can be physical and mental, social or economical to the other spouse.
The Hon‟ble Supreme Court in A. Jayachandra v. Aneel Kaur7 held that cruelty may be inferred from a course of conduct causing “immeasurable mental agony and torture”. The Apex Court further noted that physical violence is not essential to establish cruelty; a consistent course of conduct inflicting immeasurable mental agony and torture may suffice, and mental cruelty may consist of verbal abuses and insults by using filthy and abusive language, leading to (2005) 2 SCC 22 constant disturbance of mental peace. The relevant paragraphs of the judgment are extracted hereinbelow:
“12. To constitute cruelty, the conduct complained of should be “grave and weighty” so as to come to the conclusion that the petitioner spouse cannot be reasonably expected to live with the other spouse. It must be something more serious than “ordinary wear and tear of married life”. The conduct, taking into consideration the circumstances and background has to be examined to reach the conclusion whether the conduct complained of amounts to cruelty in the matrimonial law. Conduct has to be considered, as noted above, in the background of several factors such as social status of parties, their education, physical and mental conditions, customs and traditions. It is difficult to lay down a precise definition or to give exhaustive description of the circumstances, which would constitute cruelty. It must be of the type as to satisfy the conscience of the court that the relationship between the parties had deteriorated to such an extent due to the conduct of the other spouse that it would be impossible for them to live together without mental agony, torture or distress, to entitle the complaining spouse to secure divorce. Physical violence is not absolutely essential to constitute cruelty and a consistent course of conduct inflicting immeasurable mental agony and torture may well constitute cruelty within the meaning of Section 10 of the Act. Mental cruelty may consist of verbal abuses and insults by using filthy and abusive language leading to constant disturbance of mental peace of the other party.
- The court dealing with the petition for divorce on the ground of cruelty has to bear in mind that the problems before it are those of human beings and the psychological changes in a spouse’s conduct have to be borne in mind before disposing of the petition for divorce. However insignificant or trifling, such conduct may cause pain in the mind of another. But before the conduct can be called cruelty, it must touch a certain pitch of severity. It is for the court to weigh the gravity. It has to be seen whether the conduct was such that no reasonable person would tolerate it. It has to be considered whether the complainant should be called upon to endure as a part of normal human life. Every matrimonial conduct, which may cause annoyance to the other, may not amount to cruelty. Mere trivial irritations, quarrels between spouses, which happen in day-to-day married life, may also not amount to cruelty. Cruelty in matrimonial life may be of unfounded variety, which can be subtle or brutal. It may be words, gestures or by mere silence, violent or non-violent.”
The Hon‟ble Supreme Court in K. Srinivas Rao v. D.A. Deepa characterised such behaviour as portraying a “vindictive mind” that causes “extreme mental cruelty”. The Apex Court further observed that while a spouse may act in desperation, filing false complaints is “wrong” and renders (2013) 5 SCC 226 the marriage “beyond repair”. The relevant portion of the said judgment reads as follows:
“38. Before parting, we wish to touch upon an issue which needs to be discussed in the interest of victims of the matrimonial disputes. Though in this case, we have recorded a finding that by her conduct, the respondent wife has caused mental cruelty to the appellant husband, we may not be understood, however, to have said that the fault lies only with the respondent wife. In matrimonial disputes there is hardly any case where one spouse is entirely at fault. But, then, before the dispute assumes alarming proportions, someone must make efforts to make parties see reason. In this case, if at the earliest stage, before the respondent wife filed the complaint making indecent allegations against her mother-in-law, she were to be counselled by an independent and sensible elder or if the parties were sent to a mediation centre or if they had access to a pre-litigation clinic, perhaps the bitterness would not have escalated. Things would not have come to such a pass if, at the earliest, somebody had mediated between the two. It is possible that the respondent wife was desperate to save the marriage. Perhaps, in desperation, she lost balance and went on filing complaints. It is possible that she was misguided. Perhaps, the appellant husband should have forgiven her indiscretion in filing complaints in the larger interest of matrimony. But, the way the respondent wife approached the problem was wrong. It portrays a vindictive mind. She caused extreme mental cruelty to the appellant husband. Now the marriage is beyond repair.”
In the matter of Kanwal Kishore Girdhar v. Seema Girdhar9 held that “parental alienation”, where one parent intentionally turns the child against the other, is an “extreme act of cruelty”. The Court further said that the Appellant‟s actions in alienating the child from his paternal family constitute a clear and painful instance of such cruelty. The relevant paragraphs of Kanwal Kishore Girdhar (supra) are reproduced hereinbelow:
“34. In the case of Prabin Gopal vs. Meghna 2021 SCC OnLine Ker 2193 in a similar situation, the Kerala High Court observed that the mother had intentionally distanced the child from the father and had deprived the child from the parental love and affection. It was a case of parental alienation where the child, who was in the custody of one parent, had been psychologically manipulated against the estranged parent. It was a strategy whereby one parent intentionally displayed to the child unjustified negativity aimed at the other parent, with the intent to damage the relationship between the child and the estranged parent and to turn the child emotionally against the parent. It was observed by Kerala High Court that the 2024 SCC OnLine Del 1468 child has a right to love and affection of both the parents and likewise, the parents also have a right to receive love and affection of the child. Any act of any parent calculated to deny such affection to the other parent, amounts to alienating the child which amounts to mental cruelty. Since the child was in the custody of the mother, it was held that the mother had breached her duty which she owed as a custodian parent to instil love, affection and feelings in the child for the father. Nothing can be more painful than experiencing one’s own flesh and blood i.e., the child, rejecting him or her. Such wilful alienation of the child amounts to mental cruelty.
