Section 13(1)

CRUELTY AS A GROUND FOR

DIVORCE
Introduction

▪ Ground for both JS and Divorce

▪ Most difficult to define
▪ No precise definition of what it means because
it means different things to different people.
▪ Cruelty in one case cannot be made applicable
in other case.
▪ Legal cruelty not same as cruelty in common
parlance.
▪ Cruelty under HMA is either physical or mental
cruelty.
▪ It has to be differentiated from ordinary wear and
tear of marriage.
▪ The social status of parties is relevant
consideration.
▪ It may be subtle or brutal, physical or mental,
words, gestures or by silence.
▪ Hence no definite patterns can be identified
Defining the term

▪ No precise definition.
▪ Depends on case to case basis.
▪ Russel vs. Russel, it was held that cruelty is
a conduct of such a character as to have caused
danger to life or health, bodily or mental, gives
rise to reasonable apprehension of such
danger.
▪ Jamieson vs. Jamieson, it was held that the
conduct alleged has to be judged from the
standpoint of the victim’s capacity for endurance,
in so far as that capacity is or ought to be known
by the other spouse.
▪ Gollins vs. Gollins, it was held that no precise
definition of cruelty can be given yet if conduct is
reprehensible or departs from normal standards of
conjugal kindness causes injury to health or an
apprehension of same it is cruelty.
▪ Further held that if a reasonable person after
taking into consideration all the particular
circumstances and temperaments considers the
conduct is such he/she should not endure is
cruelty.
▪ Under HMA the courts have held that intention to
be cruel is not an essential ingredient for cruelty.
Judicial pronouncements under the
Hindu Marriage Act
▪ Suman Kapoor vs. Sudhir Kapoor
(mensrea irrelevant)

▪ Shyamsuder vs. Santadevi

(silence of husband against the ill-treatment
meted out to her by members of family is
cruelty as ‘pati’ is expected to be protector)
▪ Gopal vs. Mithilesh
(Act of neutrality of husband between the dispute of
wife and mother is not cruelty.)
▪ Savitri vs. Mulchand
(Cruelty of child if one parent collaborates with the
child to ill-treat the other parent will be
considered cruelty).
▪ Kaushalya vs. Wisakhiram
(husband ill-treated and beat his wife she went to
police station for filing a complaint. Court held it
to be cruelty even though the injuries were not
serious).

▪ Saptami vs. Jagdish

(Cruelty may be single act of violence or series of
acts of violence).
▪ Praveen Mehta vs. Inderjeet Mehta
(it was held that mental cruelty is a state of mind and
feeling and hence a matter of inference which has to
be drawn on the facts and circumstances taken
cumulatively.)
▪ N. Sreeadecharya vs. Vasantha
(Wife abused husband on trivial matters, at home in
public, used to say that he should die in an accident
so that she could claim the PF and insurance money.
Held it was mental cruelty).
▪ Dastane vs. Dastane
(Though the action of wife was mental cruelty but
the divorce wasn’t granted as the husband had
time and again condoned her act by marital
intercourse) IMPORTANT CASE
▪ A Jayachandra vs. Aneel Kaur
(Divorce granted by the Supreme Court on the act
of mental cruelty by wife)
▪ Shakuntala vs. Om Prakash
(Persistent refusal to have sexual intercourse with
husband is also cruelty as normal and healthy sexual
relationship is one of the basic ingredients of a happy
and harmonious marriage).
▪ Rita vs. Balkrishan Nijhawan
(Similar view.)
READ IN DETAIL ALL THE CASES FOR
UNDERTANDING OF THE TOPIC. APART
FROM LANDMARK SC RULINGS YOU CAN
TAKE UPANY OTHER CASES.