Cruelty
Cruelty is a ground for dissolution of marriage and it may be defined as wilful and unjustifiable conduct of such character as to cause danger to life, limb or health, bodily or mental, or as to give rise to a reasonable apprehension of such a danger. In the case of Maya Devi v. Jagdish Prasad, AIR 2007 SC 1426, it was held by the Court that from the conduct of the spouse an inference can be legitimately drawn that the treatment of the spouse is such that it causes apprehension in the mind of the other spouse, about his or her mental welfare then this conduct amounts to cruelty.
Appellant v. Respondent, MAT.APP (F.C.) 236/2018 & CM APPL. 38556/2018, Delhi High Court
Brief facts of the case
On 3rd December, 2003, the couple had got married however, soon after their marriage they started living separately in 2005. The husband asserted that their marriage was simple and without any dowry. The wife came to reside in the matrimonial home on 4th December 2003, but only after two days of the marriage, she started complaining that she felt suffocated in the joint family.
She insisted that separate residence from the family members be set up. The efforts of the husband to deter the wife from setting up a separate residence did not meet any success. The husband has further asserted that the wife refused to have physical relationship and has always refused to his advances by calling him impotent.
The wife alleged that she was subjected to cruelty by her husband, he had created several problems. It was informed that the wife and her family members have been convicted for offences under Section 506(II) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
It was contended by the wife that they had a very lavish wedding and even after that several demands were made by the husband. It was further alleged that she was given some medicines by her mother-in-law mentioning that after having those medicines a son would be born but it was intended to abort her pregnancy.
The Family Courts after taking into consideration various facts such as cruelty, physical abuse and mental torture along with the threats and the criminal cases filed by the wife against the husband and also the long period of separation. Observed that there was no co-habitation between the parties. It was concluded by the Family Court that the husband has successfully proved that he had been subjected to cruelty and thereby granted divorce on the ground of cruelty u/s 13(1)(ia) the Act, 1955.
Being aggrieved by the decree of divorce passed by the Family Court, the wife has preferred an appeal before the High Court of Delhi.
Observations of the Court
The division bench of the High Court including Justices Suresh Kumar Kait and Neena Bansal Krishna stated that after such long years of separation having no possibility of re-union, the husband may have found his peace in cohabiting with another woman and it cannot disentitle him to get divorce from his wife.
The Court observed that in the criminal trial, the husband and his family members have been acquitted. It was observed by the Court that “Even if it is accepted that the respondent-husband has started living with another woman and has two sons during the pendency of divorce petition, that in itself, cannot be termed as cruelty in the peculiar circumstances of this case when the parties have not been co-habiting since 2005.”
The Court added that “After such long years of separation with no possibility of re-union, the respondent husband may have found his peace and comfort by living with another woman, but, that is a subsequent event during the pendency of the divorce petition and cannot disentitle the husband from divorce from the wife on the proven grounds of cruelty”.
The High Court stated that such prolonged differences between the husband and wife, and filing of criminal complaints made the life of husband grieving of peace and conjugal relationship which is the bedrock of any matrimonial relationship.
It was further observed by the court that the wife failed to prove any other act of cruelty by the husband to disentitle him to obtain divorce. The plea of the wife was rejected wherein she challenged the order of the Family Court to grant divorce to husband on grounds of cruelty u/s 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
Cases relied upon
In K.Srinivas v.K.Sunita X (2014) SLT 126, the Supreme Court held that filing of the false complaint against the husband and his family members constitutes mental cruelty for the purpose of Section 13(1)(ia) of the Act, 1955.
The Supreme Court in Ravi Kumar v. Julmidevi (2010) 4 SCC 476 has categorically held that “reckless, false and defamatory allegations against the husband and family members would have an effect of lowering their reputation in the eyes of the society” and it amounts to ‘cruelty’.
Decision of the Court
After hearing to both the parties, the High Court noted that even though the wife had claimed that she was subjected to harassment for dowry and cruelty, she has not been able to substantiate her assertions and this amounts to an act of cruelty.
It was pointed out by the Court that the woman’s only claim was that her husband got married and sired two sons. The High Court further added that neither any specific details nor any proof of the alleged second marriage has been tendered on record or given in the complaints to the police.
The appeal of the wife was rejected by the Court and the High Court upheld the Family Court’s order granting divorce.
Conclusion
The meaning of the term “cruelty” as mentioned u/s 13(1)(ia) of the Act, 1955 cannot have a comprehensive definition of “cruelty” within which all kinds of cases of cruelty can be covered. That each case has to be considered depending upon its own unique factual circumstances.
You may contact me for consultation or advice by visiting Contact Us and Call us