Here is a compilation of Supreme Court case laws where the Court has given some sort of guidelines for Courts assessing petitions for divorce on the ground of cruelty. These Supreme Court judgments also assist parties and matrimonial lawyers as to how to prove cruelty in divorce cases in India. Why are these judgments important in the first place? Let us understand that….
In this world, every individual is different, not every household is the same. Then how can marriages be the same? Laws governing marriage also lay certain grounds for divorce. One of those divorce grounds is cruelty. However, the legislature has not defined what constitutes cruelty that makes a spouse unbearable. If we talk about the real world, there has to be some understanding of what cruelty is to allow married couples to seek divorce on such ground. That is where the case laws discussing cruelty for divorce come into play. Let us have a look at what the Apex Court considers cruelty, and how Courts assess like cases.
Supreme Court Judgments: How to Prove Cruelty for Divorce in India
Parveen Mehta v. Inderjit Mehta (2002)
The Supreme Court in this case addressed a crucial question – “What is the meaning and import of the expression ’cruelty’ as a matrimonial offence?”. The Court pointed out that the Legislature did not define what constitutes cruelty. To dwell upon the reasoning, the Court discussed that “The object, it would seem, was to give a definition exclusive or inclusive, which will amply meet every particular act or conduct and not fail in some circumstances. By the amendment the Legislature must, therefore, be understood to have left to the courts to determine on the facts and circumstances of each case whether the conduct amounts to cruelty. This is just as well since actions of men are so diverse and infinite that it is almost impossible to expect a general definition which could be exhaustive and not fail in some cases.”
In essence, the Court dwelled upon the circumstances when a spouse can no longer live with the other. In such cases, how to prove cruelty as a ground for divorce? The Court explained that “The treatment accorded to the petitioner must be such as to cause an apprehension in the mind of the petitioner that cohabitation will be so harmful or injurious that she or he cannot reasonably be expected to live with the respondent having regard to the circumstances of each case, keeping always in view the character and condition of the parties, their status environments and social values, as also the customs and traditions governing them.”
Dr. NG Dastane v. Mrs S. Dastane (1975)
In this case, the husband presented a petition before the Court to annul his marriage on the ground of fraud. As an alternative, he sought divorce either on grounds of wife being of unsound mind or judicial separation on grounds of cruelty that he apprehended harm. Looking at the case for cruelty, the Court sought inquiry based on whether the wife’s conduct, charged as cruelty by husband, was of nature as to cause reasonable apprehension in the husband’s mind that it will be harmful or injurious for him to live with his wife.
The Court explained that “Clearly, danger to life, limb or health or a reasonable apprehension of it is a higher requirement than a reasonable apprehension that it is harmful or injurious for one spouse to live with the other.” In this very case, the purported dangers were as follows:
- that she will put an end of her own life;
- that she will set the house on fire;
- that she will make him lose his job;
- that she will have the matter published in newspapers;
- Also, grave and persistent abuses and insults hurled at the husband and his parents to imperil the husband’s sense of personal safety, mental happiness, job satisfaction and reputation.
In addition, the Court emphasised upon the importance of sexual relations. Though the Court held that the wife was guilty of cruelty, it found that the husband had condoned it and her subsequent conduct did not amount to revival of original cause of action. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed. However, the case still stands tall for cases where how to prove cruelty for divorce is in question in Indian Courts.
For Courts determining cruelty cases, the Supreme Court in Dastane v. Dastane gave a way forward. Though numerous instances were claimed to prove cruelty by the husband. However, the Apex Court chose to ignore the “trifles of their married life”. The Court explained that “In many marriages each party can, if it so wills, discover many a cause for complaint but such grievances arise mostly from temperamental disharmony. Such disharmony or incompatibility is not cruelty and will not furnish a cause for the dissolution of marriage. We will therefore have regard only to grave and weighty incidents and consider these to find what place they occupy on the marriage canvas.”
Savitri Pandey vs. Prem Chandra Pandey (2002)
The Court in this case sought to explain what constitutes cruelty, in the absence of a statutory definition. The Court also took the opportunity to emphasize upon the need to get to the essence of cruelty, beyond whether the spouse was being too sensitive.
In the words of the Apex Court – “Cruelty for the purpose of the Act means where one spouse has so treated the other and manifested such 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. 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. “Cruelty”, therefore, postulates a treatment of the petitioner with such cruelty as to cause a reasonable apprehension in his or her mind that it would be harmful or injurious for the petitioner to live with the other party.”
There are two things when married couples claim cruelty. The first thing can be that they have arguments over a few things and otherwise get along well, but one spouses sees this as cruelty. The other possibility is that one spouse is giving all to the relationship and the other side refuses to make it easy for the other spouse. The first one is the wear and tear of married life, and the other sounds like mental cruelty. Marriage cannot subsist for long in the second case, and the Supreme Court seeks to delineate the two in this judgment. It expressed that “Cruelty, however, has to be distinguished from the ordinary wear and tear of family life. It cannot be decided on the basis of the sensitivity of the petitioner and has to be adjudged on the basis of the course of conduct which would, in general, be dangerous for a spouse to live with the other.” Now, if you wish to know how to prove cruelty for divorce in India, you first need to understand the difference between the two possibilities.
G.V.N. Kameswara Rao v. G. Jabilli (2002)
What constitutes cruelty is the cue for how to prove cruelty for divorce in Indian Courts. The Apex Court in this very case addressed the said gap – “Cruelty can be said to be an act committed with the intention to cause sufferings to the opposite party. Austerity of temper, rudeness of language, occasional outburst of anger, may not amount to cruelty, though it may amount to misconduct.”
The Court also gave a yardstick, or say guidelines for Courts empowered to assess allegations of cruelty in matrimonial cases. It elaborated that “The Court has to come to a conclusion whether the acts committed by the counter-petitioner amount to cruelty, and it is to be assessed having regard to the status of the parties in social life, their customs, traditions and other similar circumstances. Having regard to the sanctity and importance of marriages in a community life, the Court should consider whether the conduct of the counter- petitioner is such that it has become intolerable for the petitioner to suffer any longer and to live together is impossible, and then only the Court can find that there is cruelty on the part of the counter-petitioner. This is to be judged not from a solitary incident, but on an overall consideration of all relevant circumstances.”
V. Bhagat v. D. Bhagat (1993)
The Apex Court in this case took the opportunity to discuss an important aspect in matrimonial disputes. It gave some hints on how to prove mental cruelty in divorce cases. The Court paused to reflect that “Mental cruelty in Section 13(1)(i-a) can broadly be defined as that conduct which inflicts upon the other party such mental pain and suffering as would make it not possible for that party to live with the other. In other words, mental cruelty must be of such a nature that the parties cannot reasonably be expected to live together. The situation must be such that the wronged party cannot reasonably be asked to put up with such conduct and continue to live with the other party.”
Many a times, the aftermath upon the spouse’s health used to be argued in Courts dealing with petitions of divorce on the ground of mental cruelty. However, the Apex Court here drew the line that “It is not necessary to prove that the mental cruelty is such as to cause injury to the health of the petitioner. While arriving at such conclusion, regard must be had to the social status, educational level of the parties, the society they move in, the possibility or otherwise of the parties ever living together in case they are already living apart and all other relevant facts and circumstances which it is neither possible nor desirable to set out exhaustively. What is cruelty in one case may not amount to cruelty in another case. It is a matter to be determined in each case having regard to the facts and circumstances of that case. If it is a case of accusations and allegations, regard must also be had to the context in which they were made.”
Shobha Rani v. Madhukar Reddi (1988)
The Apex Court in this case pointed at cruelty as ground of divorce, rightly left undefined by the legislature. The Court first explained what cruelty is in context with matrimonial obligations. It stated that “It is a course of conduct of one which is adversely affecting the other. The cruelty may be mental or physical, intentional or unintentional.”
Differentiating between physical and mental cruelty, the Court emphasised that “If it is physical, the Court will have no problem to determine it. It is a question of fact and degree. If it is mental, the enquiry must begin as to the nature of cruel treatment and the impact of such treatment in the mind of the spouse, whether it caused reasonable apprehension that it would be harmful or injurious to live with the other. Ultimately, it is a matter of inference to be drawn by taking into account the nature of the conduct and its effect on the complaining spouse. There may, however, be cases where the conduct complained of itself is bad enough and per se unlawful or illegal. Then the impact or injurious effect on the other spouse need not be enquired into or considered. In such cases, the cruelty will be established if the conduct itself is proved or admitted.”
Addressing the question of how to prove mental cruelty for divorce, the Apex Court expressed that “The matrimonial conduct which constitutes cruelty as a ground for dissolution of marriage, if not admitted, requires to be proved on the preponderance of probabilities as in civil cases and not beyond a reasonable doubt as in criminal cases.” The Court explained that cruelty for divorce need not be intentional, wilful or deliberate.
The Supreme Court was also of the view that the degree of matrimonial duties and responsibilities vary from house to house or person to person. So, when a spouse complains of cruelty by a partner in life or relations, the Court should not look into the standard in life. The Apex Court clarified that Matrimonial Court is not concerned with the ideals in family life. It only needs to understand the nature of spouses concerned, and consider their particular grievance.
Roopa Soni v. Kamalnarayan Soni (2023)
The Supreme Court in this case entrusted the Courts to analyse the position of the other spouse in contested divorce. It sought to highlight the difference between man and woman in context with what constitutes cruelty. The Court was cautious, saying that “the consequences and impact may differ from person to person, based upon factors such as social setting, educational qualifications, financial status, employment, caste, community, age and place.”
Samar Ghosh v. Jaya Ghosh (2007)
In the absence of any definition for cruelty for divorce, the Court observed that “Human mind is extremely complex and human behaviour is equally complicated. Similarly human ingenuity has no bound, therefore, to assimilate the entire human behaviour in one definition is almost impossible. What is cruelty in one case may not amount to cruelty in other case. The concept of cruelty differs from person to person depending upon his upbringing, level of sensitivity, educational, family and cultural background, financial position, social status, customs, traditions, religious beliefs, human values and their value system.”
Sticking on how to prove mental cruelty in divorce with the passage of time, the Court found it a tough job to assess. However, the Apex Court in this case listed some guiding indicators which hold relevance in “mental cruelty” cases, as summarised below:
i) To consider the matrimonial life of the parties in whole to assess the instances of acute mental pain, agony and suffering making it impossible for the parties to live with each other.
(ii) Appraisal of the entire matrimonial life hints that the wronged party cannot be asked to put up with such conduct, and continue to live with the spouse.
(iii) Mere coldness or lack of affection cannot amount to cruelty. Frequently rude language, petulant, indifferent and neglecting behaviour of a degree that makes married life absolutely intolerable for the other spouse.
(iv) Mental cruelty is a state of mind. It may be resulted by the feeling of deep anguish, disappointment, frustration in one spouse caused by the prolonged conduct of another.
(v) A sustained course of abusive and humiliating treatment calculated to torture, discommode or render miserable life of the spouse.
(vi) Sustained unjustifiable conduct and behaviour of one, affecting the physical and mental health of the other spouse. The treatment complained of and the apprehended or resultant danger must be grave, substantial and weighty.
(vii) Sustained reprehensible conduct, studied neglect, indifference or total departure from the normal standard of conjugal kindness causing injury to mental health or deriving sadistic pleasure can also amount to mental cruelty.
(viii) The conduct must be much more than jealousy, selfishness, possessiveness, which causes unhappiness and dissatisfaction. Mere emotionally upset feelings may not be a ground for of divorce based on mental cruelty.
(ix) Trivial irritations, quarrels, normal wear and tear of married life not adequate for grant of divorce on mental cruelty.
(x) Married life should be reviewed as a whole. A few isolated instances over years will not amount to cruelty. The ill-conduct must be persistent for a fairly lengthy period, where the relationship deteriorated to an extent that one spouse’s acts and behaviour makes it extremely difficult for the wronged party to any longer live with the other.
(xi) A husband undergoing sterilization surgery without medical reasons or wife’s consent, or the wife undergoes vasectomy or abortion without medical reasons or husband’s consent, such an act may lead to mental cruelty.
(xii) Unilateral decision of refusal to have intercourse for a considerable period without any physical incapacity or valid reasons may amount to mental cruelty.
(xiii) Unilateral decision after marriage, of either husband or wife, not to have a child may amount to cruelty.
(xiv) Where there has been a long period of continuous separation, it may fairly be concluded that the matrimonial bond is beyond repair. The marriage becomes a fiction though supported by a legal tie. The law does not serve the sanctity of marriage by keeping the tie; but shows scant regard for the feelings and emotions of parties. In such cases, it may lead to mental cruelty.
Vishwanath Agrawal v. Sarla Vishwanath Agrawal (2012)
In this case, the wife had published in newspapers that her husband was a womaniser and drunkard. She made wild allegations about his character and also made efforts in criminal prosecutions against him, which she failed to prove. The Court acknowledged the sting, pungency and humiliation felt by the husband due to calculated torture by the wife to make his life miserable. The Court further admitted that “husband cannot be asked to put up with the conduct of the wife and to continue to live with her.” Hence, divorce on ground of cruelty was granted.
Sivasankaran v. Santhimeenal (2021)
The Apex Court in this case found several acts which could help husband prove cruelty for divorce. The wife had filed several cases against husband, she made representations before college authorities and even filed a writ petition to initiate disciplinary action against him at work, sought work documents through RTI including about his remarriage or whether living with someone else. If the question is how to prove cruelty for divorce, the Supreme Court gave all the answers through these instances.
K Srinivas Rao v. DA Deepa (2013)
The Supreme Court judgment on proving cruelty hereby clarified that husband-wife staying together was not a pre-condition for mental cruelty. It can be done by conduct, even while not staying under the same roof. The Court found the wife’s conduct vindictive as she went on with filing complaints against husband and his family, even asking the High Court for husband’s removal from his job. All these factors led the Court to allow divorce on the ground of cruelty
Beena Nautiyal v. Kamal Kishore Nautiyal (2023)
This was a controversial case where the wife refused to keep her first karvachauth vrat because her husband failed to get her phone recharged. She even declared herself a widow when her husband suffered injury, and there was long separation between them. there The Apex Court observed that “there is no chance of reconciliation between the parties and such long separation peppered which false allegations, Police reports and criminal trial can only be termed as mental cruelty.” The Court found that the marriage could not survive, and granted divorce to the husband on the ground of cruelty.
If you need more specific cases, please share your requirements at lawgicalshots@gmail.com and we will assist you with case law research.
Also read:
