TUTORIAL 3

TOPIC – CREATING THE BOUNDARIES AROUND THE LAW

OF CRUELTY
Submitted by:
Simran Swaroop
Division D
PRN 18010324139
Batch- 2018-2023
SYMBIOSIS LAW SCHOOL, HYDERABAD
Academic Year 2019-2020
In
January, 2020
Under the guidance of
Mr. Ahmar Afaq

1
 INDEX

SL. NO TOPIC PAGE NO.

1 List of Cases 3

2 Introduction 4

3 Research Objective 5

4 Research Question 6

5 Research Outcome 6

6 Chapterisation 7-15

2
LIST OF CASES
1 Savitri Pandey v. Premchandre Pandey AIR 2002 SC 591

2 Mayadevi v. Jagdish Prasad AIR 2007 SC 1426

3 Shobha Rani v. Madhukar Reddy AIR 1988 SC 121

4 Narayan Ganesh Dastane v. Sucheta Narayan (1975) 3 SCR 967 (978)

Dastane

5 Gurbachan Singh v. Satpal Singh 1990 SCC (CR) 151

6 Odom v. Odom 36 Ga. 280

7 Padma v. Padma Ram AIR 1959 H P 37

8 Bhagat v. Bhagat AIR 1994 SC 710

9 Bini T John v. Saji Kuruvila AIR 1997 Ker 247

10 A. Anilkumar v. Vanishree ILR 2009 Kar 3028

11 Rajesh Bhatnagar v. State of Uttarkhand (2012) 7 SCC 91

12 Sharad v. State of Maharashtra (2012) 5 SCC 548
13 Anil Sethi and Amar v. State of Union (1988) 1 Rec CR 134 (P&H)
territory of Chandigarh
14 Mayadevi v. Jagdish Prasad AIR 2007 SC 1426
15 Savitri Pandey v. Premchandre Pandey SUPRA 2
16 Narayan Ganesh Dastane v. Sucheta Narayan SUPRA 4
Dastane
17 Sadhana Srivastava v. Arvind Kumar AIR 2006 All 7
Srivastava

18 Bini T. John v. Saji Kuruvila AIR 1997 Ker 247

19 G. V. N. Kameshwara Rao v. G. Jabilli (2002) 2 SCC 296

20 Praveen Mehta v. Inderjeet Mehta AIR 2002 SC 2582

3
 21 Hoovamma v. Viswanath ILR 2009 Kar 4193

INTRODUCTION

According to Black’s Law Dictionary, cruelty is ‘the intention and malicious Infliction of
mental or physical suffering on a living creature, esp. a human; abusive treatment. In Indian
Family Law, cruelty is not defined’1. The concept of cruelty is changing. Firstly, cruelty was
not taken as a ground for dissolution of marriages. Then it was accepted but only the physical
cruelty that is the cruelty against the human body. By the judgements of different cases, the
concept of cruelty defined more widely as both mental and physical. Cruelty is different for
different people according to the mental state of each person and different circumstances. In
modern concept of cruelty can include both physical and mental2.

The hon’ble Supreme Court held that the cruelty can be both physical and mental as it is not
specified under the Act3. Physical cruelty is something which causes harm to the health where
mental cruelty. In the case of Savitri Pandey v. Premchandre Pandey4 it is said that the
cruelty has to be adjudged on the basis that the conduct of one spouse be dangerous for the
other partner. In another case Shobha Rani v. Madhukar Reddy5, cruelty is explained as “it
is a course of conduct of one which is adversely affecting the other.” In this case itself, it was
held that the cruelty can be both mental and physical and intentional and unintentional. Also,
how to determine the mental cruelty. In most of the cases it is said that the determination of
mental cruelty is not as easy as determining the physical cruelty.

The concept of cruelty was not so familiar for family law till some time ago. In different
scenarios it was added in various cases and statutes. The Marriage Laws (Amendment) Act of
1976 made the cruelty as a ground for divorce till then it was only for judicial separation. The
paper is aiming to get an idea about what the concept of cruelty is and how it is defined and
explained under different statutes. The types of cruelty are being defined under different case
laws as mental and physical and the concept of cruelty is not defined as such and it changes.
The paper is focusing on how cruelty is included in family law as it is affecting different
personal laws like divorce, dowry prohibition, adoption and maintenance etc. and how it is
included in Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, The Dissolution of
Muslim Marriage Act, 1939 etc.

1
https://www.lawctopus.com/academike/marital-rape-a-crime-undefined/
2
https://www.bing.com/search?
q=modern+concept+of+cruelty+can+include+both+physical+and+mental&qs=n&form=QBRE&sp=-
1&pq=modern+concept+of+cruelty+can+include+both+physical+and+menta&sc=0-
61&sk=&cvid=5AA59E65091A44DAB6069B767C731DB5
3
Mayadevi v. Jagdish Prasad (AIR 2007 SC 1426)
4
AIR 2002 SC 591
5
AIR 1988 SC 121

4
The paper is also aiming to get the clear understanding of the changing face of cruelty under
family law as it was not so important in ancient times. It is possible to see different changes
of this concept under Indian Family law from some years back. The Section 498A of Indian
Penal Code, 1960 was added for helping women from the harassments of husband and
relatives. Also, the paper is focusing to analyse that whether the concept of cruelty is being
misused in order for the benefits of individuals and the scenarios where it is being misused6.

In the matters of divorce, cruelty is a reason to get the marriage dissolved in both Hindu and
Muslim law. Till the Marriage Laws (Amendment) Act of 1976, it was not a basis for divorce
under Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 but was only a basis for judicial separation 7. The same was
upheld in 1975 in the case of Narayan Ganesh Dastane v Sucheta Narayan Dastane 8.
According to The Dissolution of Muslim Marriage Act, 1939, it is possible for a wife to seek
divorce on the ground that her divorce husband is treating her with cruelty 9. Under the Hindu
Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956, wife has right for being separated and get maintenance
if the husband is treating her with cruelty.

Section 498 A of Indian Penal Code 10 explains the term cruelty. This section was added in
IPC in order to stop the cruelty of husband and his relatives towards the wife. For the
prohibition of cruelty on demand of Dowry, Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 came into force.
The case of Gurbachan Singh v. Satpal Singh11 shows the relation of dowry and cruelty.
Under criminal law, the cruelty on the basis of demand of dowry is punishable wherein
matrimonial law, the wife can seek for divorce.

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
The research methodology used in this project is the Doctrinal method, which is purely a
theoretical method of research. It includes investigation of existing auxiliary data from
various sources like books, websites, articles, research papers etc. and making a report out of
it. Further, efforts have also been put to extract ideas from other references and to analyse and
frame ideas relevant to the topic. The data is purely secondary in nature where it is available
from different sources as mentioned in the above. Authorized websites and research papers
were the most important source coming under this. Also relied upon different newspaper
reports.

RESEARCH OBJECTIVE
6
Section 498 A, Indian Penal Code, 1960
7
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955
8
[1975]3 SCR 967 (978)
9
Grounds for decree for dissolution of marriage.—A woman married under Muslim law shall be entitled to
obtain a decree for the dissolution of her marriage on any one or more of the following grounds, namely:— A
woman married under Muslim law shall be entitled to obtain a decree for the dissolution of her marriage on
any one or more of the following grounds, namely\:—" (viii) that the husband treats her with cruelty.
10
498A.Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty—Whoever, being the husband or
the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment
for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine.
11
1990 SCC (CR) 151

5
  To get a deeper knowledge about the law of cruelty in India.
 To gain a deeper understanding about the concept of cruelty and how it comes under
family law.
 To analyse in detail how cruelty is related to different personal laws.
 To obtain a brief idea about the changing facet of cruelty in family law and to
understand how the concept has changed over a period of time.
 To understand whether the concept of cruelty is being misused by people in order to
satisfy their own vested interests.
 To provide suggestions as to how laws related to cruelty can be improved in India so
as to benefit people in a better way.

RESEARCH QUESTION

➢ How is the concept of cruelty related to Family Law and how has the concept evolved
over the years?

➢ How is the concept of cruelty different under various personal laws?

➢ Are the laws that govern the concept of cruelty being misused in the present scenario in
India?

➢ Are the laws related to cruelty in India is sufficient or are changes required to be made?

RESEARCH OUTCOME

➢ Cruelty was not given much importance till recent times where it was made a ground for
divorce, maintenance etc.

➢ The concept of cruelty is changing as first it was only included physical cruelty and in
modern terms it is made both mental and physical.

➢ The Section 498A of Indian Penal Code, 1960, section 13(ii) of Hindu Marriage Act,
Section 18 Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 etc.
are added in order to protect the individuals from cruelty mainly protecting women.

➢ The cruelty is being misused in different ways for the personal interests and benefits.

6
MEANING OF CRUELTY
Black’s Law Dictionary defines cruelty as “the Intentional and malicious infliction of
physical suffering upon living creatures, particularly human beings; or, as applied to the
latter, the wanton, malicious, and unnecessary infliction of pain upon the body, or the feelings
and emotions; abusive treatment; inhumanity; outrage8.12” The Black Law Dictionary also
defines legal cruelty separately as “such conduct on the part of the husband as will endanger
the life, limb, or health of the wife, or create a reasonable apprehension of bodily hurt; such
acts as render cohabitation unsafe, or are likely to be attended with injury to the person or to
the health of the wife.13” The Oxford dictionary defines it as “behaviour that causes pain or
suffering to others, especially deliberately14” and according to Marriam Webster it is “the
quality or state of being cruel” or “marital conduct held (as in a divorce action) to endanger
life or health or to cause mental suffering or fear15”.
Under Indian Law it is nowhere specifically mentioned the meaning of cruelty. Here,
domestic violence usually incudes abuse against spouse, which can be both sexual, mental,
physical abuses, threats of abuse etc. It is a very common phenomenon which can be seen
around us. In a foreign case, Odom v. Odom16 it was held that “cruelty may be defined to be
such conduct on the part of the husband as will endanger the life, limb, or health of the wife,
or create a reasonable apprehension of bodily hurt; such acts as render cohabitation unsafe, or
are likely to be attended with injury to the person or to the health of the wife.” In the case of
Padma v. Padma Ram17, it was held that “It is impossible to give a comprehensive
definition of cruelty, but when reprehensible conduct or departure from the normal standards
of conjugal kindness causes any injury to the health of the woman or any kind of mistrust
regarding it, it is cruelty, after taking all the temperament and all other, would consider that
the conduct complained of is such that this spouse should not be called to endure it.” The
same was again upheld in the case of Bhagat v. Bhagat18. In this case of Bini T John v. Saji
Kuruvila19 the court held that the meaning of cruelty is some cruel act committing against a
person continuously. Different Acts are given different interpretations to the term cruelty.
Under section 2 (vii) of Dissolution of Muslim Marriage Act, 1939, cruelty includes “(a)
habitually assaults her or makes her life miserable by cruelty of conduct even if such conduct
does not amount of physical ill-treatment, or (b) associates with women of evil repute or
leads an infamous life, or (c) attempts to force her to lead an immoral life, or (d) disposes of
her property or prevents her exercising her legal rights over it, or (e) obstructs her in the
12
http://thelawdictionary.org/cruelty/
13
http://thelawdictionary.org/legal-cruelty

14
http://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/english/cruelty

15
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/cruelty
16
36 Ga. 280
17
AIR 1959 HP 37
18
AIR 1994 SC 710
19
AIR 1997 Ker 247

7
observance of her religious profession or practices, or (f) if he has more wives than one, does
not treat her equitably in accordance with the injunctions of the Quran20.”

OBJECTIVE FOR ESTABLISHING A STRICT RULE AGAINST CRUELTY

The Dowry Prohibition Act was passed in 1961, yet thought it was nowhere mention about
the word cruelty. The legislators only thought of prohibiting dowry rather than curbing it and
protecting women from the harassment that she had to undergo. In the year 1983, to check the
cruelty to the women by the husband and by the parent-in-laws, growing in an unprecedented
scale in the country a new chapter was entitled XXA ‘Of Cruelty by Husband or Relatives of
Husband’ was added. In the same time an additional amendment was made in the Evidence
Act shifting the burden of proof of innocence on the part of the accused prosecution where
abetment of suicide by a married woman or if a wife commits suicide within a period of
seven years from the date of marriage. The main objective to add this chapter is to punish the
husband and his relatives who torture and harass the wife in order to coerce her or any person
related to her makes any unlawful demand or to drive her to commit suicide. In the landmark
case of, Gurbachan Singh v. Satpal Singh21 Supreme Court explained the link between the
demand for dowry and cruelty. Keeping in mind the facts of the case, court held that the
victim was a newlywed woman, who committed suicide within a year of her marriage and
was subjected to ultimate cruelty (she was also insinuated to have an illegitimate child).
Accused were the family members, they demanded for dowry and she fails to give it, they
used to torture her. The court comprises of two judges bench who said that the worst part of
cruelty is that people taunt her for having an illegitimate child. Also, court held that a
respectable lady can’t bear false allegation on her and this has mentally tortured her. Thus,
the accused constantly demands for money, and hence their torture and taunts results to
instigation and abetment that compelled to do commit suicide.

This case helps us to see how the demand for dowry is a very delicate matter. It can transform
into an ugly picture and will ultimately cause death to a woman.

Alike, in the recent case of Rajesh Bhatnagar v. State of Uttarkhand22 and Sharad v. State
of Maharashtra23 when the brides were burnt alive with reference to the demand of dowry
and their failure in fulfilling the demand, one can very well understand the stand of cruelty in
demand for dowry. These types of cases help the researchers to get a clear picture of how the
demand for dowry is becoming a very cruel issue.

Recently, Supreme Court has said that a person can’t be sentenced only for demanding dowry
unless the demand pursue by mental as well as physical cruelty which results the death of the
victim24. In case of Amar Singh v. State of Rajasthan the court have said that just demanding
20
Section2, Dissolution Marriage Act 1939
21
1990 SCC (CR) 151
22
(2012) 7 SCC 91
23
(2012) 5 SCC 548
24
Amar Singh, No conviction for mere demand of dowry: Supreme Court. Times of India, Aug 5, 2010, 07.06pm
IST, http://articles.timesofindia.com/2010-08-05/india/28306393_1_dowry-death-section-498a-section-304b-

8
dowry can’t be result into a case of cruelty and one can’t file a case for this. Bench of two
judges named, Justice R M Lodha and A K Patnaik said that the prosecution need such
convincing evidence that clearly states that the accused had subjected the victim to torture
soon earlier than her death in connection with the demand.

Again in a latest case a Delhi Court has held that “hardly taunts and jibes for bringing
insufficient dowry” doesn’t not amounting to inflicting harassment to woman or subjecting
her to cruelty for dowry, besides there is a constant demand for it aimed at forcing her to
meet it25. Hence, we see that there is a very affectionate relation between cruelty and demand
for dowry. The legislators have done a benevolent job with the aid of bringing in legal
guidelines which enabled the courts to punish the greed and lust filled human beings who
demand dowry exchange of woman. But again, as mentioned earlier, cruelty is a subjective
term. The quantity of patience to bear cruelty is distinct from woman to woman. What can be
hardly a taunt for one woman but can be very harsh comment for other woman. Tolerance
has constantly been exceptional for each and every human being. But then query arises as to
how does one become aware of when to file a complaint for dowry and when not to. The
legislators and the courts have left a very open area in this regard. Their stand is vague here.
The court in India is meant to take a detached stand for they are certain through law and can’t
anticipate the Indian Court to fall for each emotion. Yet it can take a reconciliatory stand.
When one approaches the court, one expects the problem to be solved and to get again into
the normal family. But if the courts aren’t able to do that, then it’s a failure on their part.

KINDS OF CRUELTY
Cruelty can be divided on the basis of method of inflicting cruelty and on the relationship
affecting cruelty. It is divided as:
1. Physical and mental cruelty.
2. Matrimonial cruelty and cruelty in other relationships.

1.1. Physical cruelty: - Black Law Dictionary defines physical cruelty as “a term that is used
as a basis for a divorce when a person feels that their safety is threatened 26.” If there is any
hurt on the body or pain or injury it will be considered as physical cruelty. It can be including
anything which causes a hurt to the body of the women like beating etc. It is the act of
causing danger to the body of other and causing to emerge an apprehension of danger.

1.2. Mental cruelty: - Cruelty which effect the mind-set of a person is also considered as a
cruelty which is equally or more important than physical cruelty. There is no specific method
to identify different types of mental cruelty. “Many forms of mental cruelty have been
recognised such as false criminal charges, threat to commit suicide, undue familiarity with a
person of opposite sex, refusal to have marital intercourse, false accusation of adultery etc 27.”
ipc.
25
Shekhar Gupta, Dowry taunts and jibes do not amount to harassment: Court, The Indian Express, Wed Apr
06 2011, 14:47 hrs, hhtp://www.indianexpress.com/news/dowry-taunts-and-jibes-do-not-amount-to-
harassment-court/772418/0
26
http://thelawdictionary.org/physical-cruelty/
27
https://www.bing.com/search?
q=many+forms+of+mental+cruelty+have+been+recognised+such+as+false+criminal+charges

9
Mental cruelty changes from person to person. Some words, acts or conduct may hurt some
people whereas it may not be a problem for some other people. In order to consider cruelty in
a matrimonial life, there are some guidelines to be fulfilled according to the judgement of
Karnataka High Court in the case of A. Anil Kumar v. Vanishree28. Mental cruelty alone is
only needed to file a case for relief, physical cruelty is not necessary.
2.1. Matrimonial cruelty: - In most of the matrimonial laws, cruelty is mentioned as a ground
for matrimonial remedies. It is mentioned in many provisions as a ground for divorce and
matrimonial separation. It is considered as misbehaviour of a spouse to another which causes
mental agony in the minds of the person. Nowhere in the matrimonial laws explained the
term cruelty whereas it is considered as action or conduct of a spouse which generate a
danger situation or apprehension of danger in the mind of other spouse by causing hurt to the
health or like affecting mentally. “It is impossible to give a comprehensive definition of
cruelty, but when reprehensible conduct or departure from the normal standards of conjugal
kindness causes injury to health or an apprehension of it, it is cruelty if a reasonable person,
after taking due account of the temperament and all the other particular circumstances, would
consider that the conduct complained of is such that this spouse should not be called to
endure it29.”
2.2. Cruelty in other relationships: - Many other types of cruelties are also there other than
matrimonial cruelty like sexual abuse of women and children, domestic violence, sexual
harassment etc.

CRUELTY, A SUBJECTIVE MATTER BEING TREATED OBJECTIVELE BY

INDIAN COURT
In India matrimonial alliances means bonding between two families. Whenever a case is been
filled for dowry, the conclusion may come often a bad blood between the two families or
divorce on the ground of cruelty and dowry. Referring the statistics, we get a very clear
picture that there is significant rise in divorce cases due to cruelty. While judging any cruelty
and dowry cases the stand of Indian Court is very essential. While judging, a judge may
always consider that thought the issue here is subjective but still they must try and find out a
way so the spouses can live a peaceful life after the case gets over. Referring to the case of
Anil Sethi and Amar v. State of Union territory of Chandigarh 30 , the case so happened
that the accused party acknowledged their mistake and pleaded the judge for mercy. They
were able to convince the court of their realization and the court finally acquitted them. There
was an example given by the Punjab and Haryana High Court which states that the main
objective of law that spouses live happily rather living broken separately. They even
requested all the possible judges to review their decisions so that the resultant is a
harmonious family.

Hence, it is very clear that thought the Indian courts are bound by law, yet they carry a huge
responsibility in favour of the society. Referring to the principle of natural justice, if the court

%2C+threat+to+commit+suicide%2C+undue+familiarity+with+a+person+of+opposite+sex
%2C+refusal+to+have+marital+intercourse
%2C+false+accusation+of+adultery+etc&form=EDGEAR&qs=PF&cvid=870d8259b2d543a2a664c6d5b0e90412
&cc=IN&setlang=en-US&PC=HCTS
28
ILR 2009 Kar 3028
29
Padma v. Padma Ram A.I.R. 1959 HP. 37, Bhagat v. Bhagat, A.I.R. 1994 SC. 710
30
(1988) 1 Rec CR 134 (P&H).

10
is successful in bringing the bond between the spouses that had been lost due to dowry and
cruelty cases, then it will be their ultimate justice31.

PROVISIONS RELATED TO CRUELTY

Hindu Marriage Act, 1955: - According to Section 13(1) (i-a) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955
which was added by the Marriage Laws (Amendment) Act 68 of 1976 says that if a spouse
treats other with cruelty, then it can be considered as a ground for divorce.
Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005: - Under this Act, cruelty have a
very wider meaning. It includes all types of abuse and threats against women which includes
sexual, physical, mental, economic, verbal etc.
Dissolution of Muslim Violence Act, 1939: - Under section 2 (vii) of the Act it is said that
“A woman married under Muslim law shall be entitled to obtain a decree for the dissolution
of her marriage on the ground that the husband treats her with cruelty, that is to say: “(a)
habitually assaults her or makes her life miserable by cruelty of conduct even if such conduct
does not amount of physical ill-treatment, or (b) associates with women of evil repute or
leads an infamous life, or (c) attempts to force her to lead an immoral life, or (d) disposes of
her property or prevents her exercising her legal rights over it, or (e) obstructs her in the
observance of her religious profession or practices, or (f) if he has more wives than one, does
not treat her equitably in accordance with the injunctions of the Quran.”
Parsi Marriage and Divorce Act, 1936: - Under Section 32 (dd) of the Act, it says that
“That the defendant has since the solemnization of marriage treated the plaintiff with cruelty
or has behaved in such a way as to render it in the judgment of the Court improper to compel
the plaintiff to live with the defendant.” According to Section 32 (e) it is “that the defendant
has since the marriage voluntarily cause grievous hurt to the plaintiff – or where the
defendant is the husband, has compelled the wife to submit herself to prostitution” amounts
to cruelty.

Indian Divorce Act, 1869: - Section 10 provides. “Any wife may present a petition to the
District court or the High Court, praying that her marriage may be dissolved on the ground
that, since the solemnization thereof (her husband) has been guilty of adultery coupled with
such cruelty as without adultery would have entitled her to a divorce.”
Special Marriages Act, 1954: - According to Section 27 d of the Act, it can be a ground for
divorce if “the respondent has, since the solemnization of marriage, treated the petitioner with
cruelty”.
Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961: - Torturing on the demand of dowry would amount to cruelty.
Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956: - According to Section 18 (2) (b) of the Act,
if a man treats his wife with cruelty, then she can claim for maintenance.
Section 498 A of Indian Penal Code, 1860: - The section deals with the cruelty against
woman by her husband or his relatives. For the same, they shall be punished for
imprisonment also liable to fine.

31
Vinay Sharma, Dowry Deaths, 1st ed, 2007. Pp. 72-81

11
SCOPE OF THE TERM CRUELTY UNDER FAMILY LAW

The scope of the term cruelty under Indian Family Law is changing from case to case. It is
because this term is not defined anywhere in the law. It is mainly according to human
conduct and conceptions that are it can change from person to person. For each and every
case, the facts and circumstances decide that the particular situation can be considered as
cruelty or not. In most of the personal laws in India, it is totally the discretion of the court to
consider particular circumstances or certain facts as cruelty or not. It can be both intentional
and unintentional. A number of case laws enhanced the scope of the term cruelty.
In the famous case Mayadevi v. Jagdish Prasad32 the court held that “Cruelty which is a
ground for dissolution of marriage may be defined as wilful and unjustifiable conduct of such
character in order 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. Cruelty need not be
physical. If from the conduct of the spouse it is established or 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
cruelty33”.
In another case of Savitri Pandey v. Premchandre Pandey34 “Treating the petitioner with
cruelty is a ground for divorce under section 13 (1) (i-a) of the Act. Cruelty has not been
defined in the Act but in relation to matrimonial matters it is contemplated as a conduct of
such type which endangers the living of the petitioner with the respondent. Cruelty consists
of acts which are dangerous to life, limb or health. Cruelty for the purpose of the Act means
where one spouse has not 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.35”
In the case of Shobha Rani v. Madhukar Reddy36, the hon’ble court defines cruelty very
clearly. In this case it was supported the existence of mental cruelty under the term of legal
cruelty. “Section 13(1) (i-a) uses the words "treated the petitioner with cruelty". The word
"cruelty" has not been defined. Indeed, it could not have been defined. It has been used in
relation to human conduct or human behaviour. It is the conduct in relation to or in respect of
matrimonial duties and obligations. It is a course of conduct of one which is adversely
affecting the other. The cruelty may be mental or physical, intentional or unintentional. 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 problem presents difficulty.” In Narayan Ganesh Dastane v. Sucheta
Narayan Dastane37, the allegation from the side of husband was that from the first day of
marriage, his wife is not ready to have sex with him. In this case the court observed that in
marital life there is a very important role for sex. In the case Sadhana Srivastava v. Arvind
Kumar Srivastava38, the court held that “making false allegations against husband of having
32
AIR 2007 SC 1426
33
Section 13, The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955
34
Supra 2
35
https://www.google.com/search?q=%22Mental%20cruelty%20is%20the%20conduct%20of%20other
%20spouse%20which%20causes%20mental%20suffering%20or%20fear%20to%20the%20matrimonial%20life
%20of%20the%20other.%E2%80%9D%22
36
Supra 2
37
Supra 4
38
AIR 2006 All 7

12
illicit relationship and extramarital affairs by wife in her written statement constitute mental
cruelty of such nature that husband cannot be reasonably asked to live with wife.”
In this case of Bini T. John v. Saji Kuruvila 39, the court held that the meaning of cruelty is
some cruel act committing against a person continuously. The court in the case
G.V.N.Kameswara Rao v. G. Jabilli40 found that “if the act which has been committed by
the counter-petitioner amount of cruelty, it need to be kept in mind the status of both the
parties in their social life, customs, traditions and other circumstances”. In the case of
Praveen Mehta v. Inderjeet Mehta41 which discuss about the extent of the term cruelty says
that it includes physical and mental, both types of cruelty.
In the case of Hoovamma v. Viswanath42, it was held that the cruelty is not defined under
the law and it is impossible to define also. It is according to human conduct or human
behaviour. If spouses are living separately and there is no element of love is remaining
between them, then the marital relationship for name sake itself will be a cruelty towards
them.

SHOULD THE CURRENT LAWS RELATED TO CRUELTY BE REDEFINED?

Cruelty is a term which has wide interpretation in the field of law. In most of the cases the
view or extension of the term is changing. It is because that there is no specific definition for
the term cruelty under any of the laws in India. The scope is changing according to the facts
and circumstances of the each and every case. It is changing according to people that are
person to person which means it really depends on human conduct and mentality of each
person. It is the clear discretion of the judge to consider the facts of a case amount to cruelty
or not. Every time the question is whether the facts of the cases are coming under cruelty or
not? This is because no one knows what all actually constitutes cruelty. Only way to
minimise this problem is that make a proper definition for cruelty under law where it can
make easier to interpret each case.

CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTIONS

The term cruelty which is very relevant under Indian family law is a changing concept. Its
scope and meaning are changing over time accordingly. Earlier, the term was just only
included physical cruelty where it was started to include both mental and physical. It was not
a serious issue earlier where it started to be very important because of the increasing number
of cases under the topic. With the changing times, the avidity for money has also been
increased. People even burn the brides which a menace in its own and there can’t be anything
crueller than this. Cruelty is a subjective term and there can’t be any specified definition of
cruelty. An individual can assume the amount of cruelty but again the tolerance level it is
different from woman to woman. The courts try their best every time but always face variant
situations. But again the term being subjective in nature while the courts being objective in
nature, one cannot expect a lot from the outcomes. Most of the time cruelty results into a bad
blood between the two families though in a matrimonial alliance this is the one thing that
needs to be sorted out. It is very important for the courts to keep in mind that whenever such
issue is arisen there must be an exemplary punishment rather than a harsh punishment
because the real motive is to save the marriage. A very wide interpretation is giving to the
term of cruelty as it is not specifically defined anywhere under law. Everywhere in every
39
AIR 1997 Ker 247
40
(2002) 2 SCC 296
41
AIR 2002 SC 296
42
ILR 2009 Kar 4193

13
case, there will be a question whether the facts of that case constitute cruelty or not? If it is
correctly defined the term cruelty under the law, there will not be such a problem to interpret.
This is a need to make changes to the law in order to insert a proper definition for cruelty as
the term is using very widely and importantly in different personal laws related to divorce,
dowry prohibition, protection from domestic violence, maintenance etc.

14
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Books
1. Prof. G C V Subba Rao, Family Law in India, Narendar Gogia & Company, 10th edition.
2. Sir Dinshaw Farbunji Mulla, Hindu Law, Lexis Nexis, 23rd edition
3. K. D. Gaur, Textbook on Indian Penal Code, Universal Law Publishing, Fifth Edition.

Statutes
1. Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (Bare Act)
2. Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (Bare Act)
3. Dissolution of Muslim Violence Act, 1939 (Bare Act)
4. Parsi Marriage and Divorce Act, 1936 (Bare Act)
5. Indian Divorce Act, 1869 (Bare Act)
6. Special Marriages act, 1954 (Bare Act)
7. Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (Bare Act)
8. Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 (Bare Act)
9. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Bare Act)

Websites
1.https://shodhganga.inflibnet.ac.in/bitstream/10603/94157/9/09_chapter%203.pdf
2.https://vinayak.wordpress.com/category/cruelty-under-hma-different-from-498a/
3.https://shodhganga.inflibnet.ac.in/bitstream/10603/132464/10/10_chapter%202.pdf
4..http://www.lawmantra.co.in/dowry-and-cruelty/

Databases
1. Manupatra
2. SCC Online
3. Lexis Nexis
4. JStor

15
THANK YOU

16