New Delhi: In a ruling passed on 20 December this year, a two-judge bench of the Supreme Court quashed a cruelty case filed by a woman against her husband’s parents, observing that it was filed with the “ulterior motive” of pressuring the husband to agree to a divorce.
“Facts lead us to conclude that the proceedings were initiated with an ulterior motive of pressuring the son of the appellant herein to consent to the divorce according to the terms of the complainant, and the proceedings were used as a weapon by the complainant in the personal discord between the couple,” the bench comprising justices B.R. Gavai and K.V. Viswanathan ruled.
The court in its 26-page ruling also cited its 10 December judgment delivered in the case of Dara Lakshmi Narayana vs the State of Telangana, where it flagged the misuse of Section 84 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), which deals with cruelty towards a woman by her husband or his relative.
Legal experts ThePrint spoke to said that although the definition of cruelty in matrimonial cases has broadened over the years, this expansion has not taken place in a meaningful manner, and is still heavily affected by considerations such as the parties’ gender, lifestyle, financial standing, educational background, cultural practices and social mores.
Notably, the offence of cruelty can be classified into two types—civil and criminal.
Under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, cruelty is a ground for divorce under Section 13(1)(ia). On the other hand, Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, which corresponds with Section 84 of the BNS, deals with cruelty towards a woman by her husband or his relative, and stipulates a three-year imprisonment term or fine for the offence.
The explanation to this section, however, narrows down “cruelty” to “a) any wilful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman; or (b) harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand”.
Simply put, cruelty in criminal law is a gendered offence but not so in civil or matrimonial law.
Also Read: Divorce isn’t the problem. Staying in bad marriage for the sake of kids is
Is there a standard definition of ‘cruelty’?
Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act entails various grounds for granting a divorce, which include adultery, cruelty, deserting one’s partner continuously for a two-year-period at least, the partner’s religious conversion, if the partner is of unsound mind or suffering from a communicable venereal disease and if they renounce the world, among others.
The Supreme Court in 2012 said that the expression “cruelty” has an inseparable nexus with human conduct or human behaviour.
“It is always dependent upon the social strata or milieu to which the parties belong, their ways of life, relationship, temperaments and emotions that have been conditioned by their social status,” it said in Vishwanath Agrawal vs Sarla Vishwanath Agrawal.
Later, in 2023, the Supreme Court in another matrimonial case, Roopa Soni vs Kamalnarayan Soni, explained how the word cruelty under Section 13(1)(ia) of the 1955 Act “has got no fixed meaning” and therefore “gives a very wide discretion to the court to apply it liberally and contextually”.
“What is cruelty in one case may not be the same for another. As stated, it has to be applied from person to person while taking note of the attending circumstances,” it said.
Speaking to ThePrint, senior advocate Geeta Luthra said the definition of cruelty has evolved and broadened over time.
“The definition of cruelty has evolved over the years from just physical cruelty to include mental cruelty. The Supreme Court’s 1975 judgment in NG Dastane vs S. Dastane defined cruelty as a ground for divorce in matrimonial cases. However, the court’s metric has usually been evaluating this definition of cruelty from the eyes of a reasonable person,” she said.
“In matrimonial affairs we are not dealing with objective standards, it is not a matrimonial offence to fall below the standard of the reasonable man (or the reasonable woman),” the apex court noted in its 2023 ruling in Roopa Soni vs Kamalnarayan Soni.
In 2023, the Supreme Court also pointed out that the element of subjectivity has to be applied in cruelty cases because “what constitutes cruelty is objective” and “what is cruelty for a woman in a given case may not be cruelty for a man”.
Luthra, who specialises in family and matrimonial law, added: “There are plenty of cases where the husband contended that the wife doesn’t cook for him or refuses to live with his parents. In 2016, the Kerala High Court ruled that the wife not knowing how to cook would not amount to cruelty. However, last year, the Delhi High Court ruled that a wife living separately from her husband’s relatives, when he chooses to stay in a joint family, amounts to cruelty. On the whole, archaic notions of cruelty are usually not acceptable in most courts.”
Recalling the 2004 ruling of the Supreme Court in A. Jayachandra vs Aneel Kaur, where two doctors were embroiled in a matrimonial dispute, Luthra spoke of how the court had expanded the notion of cruelty to include mental cruelty. She also said that one person’s definition of cruelty may completely differ from another’s.
“Still, more often than not, courts steer clear from considering the ‘normal wear and tear’ of matrimonial life as cruelty. In a 2007 case, Samar Ghosh vs Jaya Gosh, the Supreme Court also specified that mere trivial irritations, quarrels, normal wear and tear of married life aren’t adequate for grant of divorce on grounds of mental cruelty,” she said.
A three-judge bench of the top court, while holding that isolated marital arguments won’t amount to cruelty, had ruled in the 2004 case: “The expression ‘cruelty’ has not been defined in the (Hindu Marriage) Act. Cruelty can be physical or mental. Cruelty which is a ground for dissolution of marriage 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.”
“The question of mental cruelty has to be considered in the light of the norms of marital ties of the particular society to which the parties belong, their social values, status, environment in which they live,” it added.
What is mental cruelty?
Until the year 1976, cruelty was not considered a ground for divorce due to the prevailing social norms then. Subsequently, with an amendment to the Hindu Marriage Act of 1955, cruelty came to be seen as a valid ground for divorce.
Before that, the Divorce Act, 1869, allowed for judicial separation on the ground of cruelty by a spouse, but only on the condition that there was an accompanying “reasonable apprehension” in the petitioner’s mind that such cruelty would make it “harmful or injurious” to live with the spouse.
Later, in 2006, the top court in Naveen Kohli vs Neelu Kohli clarified that the ingredient of physical violence or danger to one’s life was not mandatory to constitute cruelty and that mental agony and torture could also constitute cruelty.
“A too technical and hyper-sensitive approach would be counterproductive to the institution of marriage. The courts do not have to deal with ideal husbands and ideal wives. It has to deal with [the] particular man and woman before it. The ideal couple or a mere ideal one will probably have no occasion to go to matrimonial court,” the court had stated in that case.
Notably, it was in the 1993 case V. Bhagat vs D. Bhagat that the Supreme Court defined the aspect of mental cruelty as 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 court also said that mental cruelty can be caused by several factors, including false accusations of adultery, unjustified denial of sexual intercourse, unjustified refusal to have children and excessive demands of dowry.
How different HCs have viewed ‘cruelty’
The lack of a common definition of cruelty has led to a series of contrasting judgments from high courts about what can and cannot be termed as cruelty.
‘Quarrels, bad language, curses not cruelty’
In a Madras High Court order passed in September this year, a two-judge bench said that with passage of time and due to the impact of electronic media, the concept of cruelty was bound to change.
“There cannot be any fixed parameters for determining the issue of cruelty in matrimonial matters. Therefore, it is prudent to adjudicate on a case-to-case basis, by evaluating in a given situation,” it observed.
In that case, R. Venkataraman vs Rajalakshsmi, the court rejected the husband’s petition accusing the wife of cruelty for picking quarrels with him, using bad language against him, not caring for him and cursing him to die.
The court also said that acts of cruelty would differ from person to person and man to woman, adding that a “broad approach” was the need of the hour in matrimonial matters.
‘Love for pet not cruelty’
In December this year, Justice M. Nagaprasanna of the Karnataka High Court stayed all further investigation against a man in a matrimonial case after finding out that his wife’s allegation of cruelty against him was on account of his love for his pet cat.
“The allegation is that the husband takes care of the cat more than the wife. Every time when the wife has pointed out this, there is a dispute between the two and abuses are hurled. That is what is narrated in most of the paragraphs of the complaint, therefore the issue is not with regard to demand of dowry or assault over demand of dowry or cruelty meted out by the husband. The issue is with regards to the pet cat and the cat attacking or scratching the wife several times,” the court had observed.
‘Wife’s friends, relatives overstaying is cruelty’
On 19 December this year, a division bench of the Calcutta High Court observed that the continued stay of the wife’s friends and relatives at the husband’s house, despite his objections, amounted to cruelty.
“In any event, the continued presence of…(wife’s friend) and others of her family at the residence of the husband despite his objection and discomfort on such count is borne out by the records. Such imposition of friend and family of the respondent on the husband at his quarter against his will, sometimes even when the respondent-wife herself was not there, over a continuous period of time, can definitely be constituted as cruelty, since it might very well have made life impossible for the appellant, which would come within the broader purview of cruelty,” the court said as it allowed the husband’s appeal and granted him a divorce.
‘Making wife sleep on carpet not cruelty’
In October, this year, the Bombay High Court acquitted a man who was convicted by the trial court for cruelty and abetment of his wife’s suicide, observing that making the wife sleep on the carpet and fetch water at night, and preventing her from mixing with neighbours, did not amount to cruelty.
“Merely sleeping on carpet also would not amount to cruelty. Similarly, what sort of taunting was made and by which accused is not getting clear. Likewise, preventing her to mix with neighbour [sic] also cannot be termed as harassment,” the court said.
‘Expecting wife to do household chores not cruelty’
In March this year, a division bench of the Delhi High Court ruled that if a husband expected his wife to do household chores, this could not be termed cruelty.
“In a catena of decisions, it has already been held that if a married woman is asked to do household work, the same cannot be equated to the work of a maid servant and shall be counted as her love and affection for her family,” the court said in its ruling.
Legal experts weigh in
Speaking to the Print, Delhi-based family lawyer Dharmender Arya said that certain things that were not considered cruelty earlier are now being considered so.
“This is because, over the years, the definition of cruelty has changed. It varies from person to person, society to society and judge to judge. While asking one’s wife to make a cup of tea may not be considered odd in a village, it may be so in the case of a working woman who is equally tired and coming home after a hard day of work,” he said.
Recalling an incident from his early days of practice at a trial court, Arya said: “One time, we witnessed a case where an officer was alleged to have used abusive language towards his subordinate. When the judge got to know exactly what abuses were hurled at the junior, he had a puzzled look on his face and asked, ‘What’s abusive about that?’”
In the 1992 case Sukumar vs Tripathi, the Supreme Court observed that “no attempt at drawing a complete list as to what constitutes cruelty can ever succeed”, while adding that the legislature and judiciary have deliberately avoided clearly defining this term, keeping its contours as broad as possible.
Delhi-based lawyer Malavika Rajkotia, who has over 39 years of experience in family and property law, said: “While the definition (of cruelty) has broadened, it hasn’t happened in a meaningful manner.”
“Some judgments still exist where courts consider whether the spouse is impossible to live with. The Supreme Court has also specified that judges cannot impose their idea of what cruelty is in such cases, while at other times it has said that cruelty must be gauged from the eyes of a prudent man. However, since such situations reflect a fraught emotional position, it becomes difficult to analyse from a prudent person’s viewpoint,” she explained.
“There have been cases of cruelty where the wife refused to wear sindoor. In other judgments, courts have said arguments between husband and wife are part of the wear and tear of marriage. Frankly, it depends on the socialisation of the judge and their approach to divorce. Oftentimes, the standard isn’t whether the spouse is cruel, but instead whether divorce should be granted in a particular judge’s eyes,” Rajkotia added.
She further said that cruelty as a ground for divorce emanated from the fault theory, the roots of which can be traced back to the Indian Divorce Act of 1869.
According to the fault theory, a marriage can be dissolved if a spouse can prove that it suffered due to the ‘fault’ of the other party. Such fault or matrimonial offence can be of different types, like adultery, cruelty, desertion, among others.
“If issues of custody and maintenance are taken care of, courts should not hesitate to grant divorce,” Rajkotia added.
(Edited by Nida Fatima Siddiqui)
Also Read: How Special Marriage Act is condemning interfaith couples to UP-style anti-conversion laws