Cruelty as Ground for Divorce

 

Cruelty as Ground for Divorce

If we look at the history of the Hindu Marriage Act of 1955, we can see that cruelty was never considered as a reason for divorce, but only in circumstances of judicial separation. The petitioner or aggrieved party must show that the cruelty is so severe or unbearable that it is becoming difficult to continue with his or her spouse (the defender). However, in the landmark case of Narayan Ganesh Dastane vs. Sucheta Narayan Dastane in 1975, the Supreme Court upheld this. This resulted in a modification to the Act in 1976, which included the addition of cruelty as a cause for divorce, as well as a legal definition of the term cruelty. However, the Court also stated that the courts should decide the case on the basis of cruelty only on the basis of the case's subject matter. Except for two phrases added, “persistently or repeatedly,” there was no difference between reasons of cruelty resulting in judicial separation and grounds of cruelty resulting in divorce when this statute was amended. The establishment of cruelty as a reason for divorce was given far greater weight as a result of this inclusion than proving it as a ground for judicial separation. This basis was added to the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, under Section 10(1), and the term "cruelty" now has its own definition.

Types of Cruelty:

Physical Cruelty:

We don't mean outside-the-home violence when we say physical cruelty; we're talking about marital physical aggressiveness that leads to cruelty. Any physical assault, bodily injuries, or threats to life, limb, or health that appear to generate fear in the woman's mind would be considered physical abuse on the husband. Physical cruelty is simple to establish because physical violence is one of the leading causes of divorce.

Mental Cruelty:

Apart from physical violence, any woman who is under mental stress, has to sacrifice her mental peace for her spouse, or is subjected to persistent emotional anguish is a victim of mental cruelty. There are no hard and fast guidelines about what constitutes mental cruelty because mental strain can present itself in a variety of ways. For instance, if the husband compels the wife to do something she does not want to do. Whatever the partner does not express or a hide that creates a sense of mistrust is considered mental cruelty.

Other statutory provisions:

The offence of cruelty against a wife by her husband and/or in-laws is covered by Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code.

Section 498A Ingredients:

1) The woman and her husband must be legally married.

2) The woman has to have been subjected to cruelty or marital violence in some way.

3) Such cruelty must be perpetrated by her husband or his relatives, which are limited to the husband's parents, brothers and sisters, and no one else, not even a close acquaintance or distant relative. If the spouse, on the other hand, commits such brutality, he faces up to three years in prison and a fine.

Section 498A of the IPC: Under this provision, the term "cruelty" has been defined in a broader sense, namely:

The start of any willful action of this sort that would likely push the wife to commit suicide or put her in severe risk by inflicting bodily or emotional injury to the wife's life, limb, or health.

Harassing the wife with the intent of coercing her or her relatives to comply with any unlawful demands for property or valuable security, or as a result of her or any of her relatives' failure to comply with such demand.

Reema Aggarwal Vs. Anupam and Ors of 2004

Reema Aggarwal was persecuted by her husband Anupam, mother-in-law, brother-in-law, and father-in-law for not being able to offer enough dowry in the case of Reema Aggarwal Vs. Anupam and Ors of 2004. Reema was transported to the hospital after the accused pushed her to put an acidic and deadly liquid in her mouth to end her life. Because it was both Reema and Anupam's second marriage, the Court decided that the husband of the second wife who marries her during the continuation of an earlier lawful marriage is not the husband within the meaning of Section 498A, and so the second wife cannot utilise this section. The respondents were found not guilty of the charges brought against them under Sections 307 and 498A of the Indian Penal Code.

Cruelty is defined in Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act as behaviour by one spouse against the other that causes the latter to have a reasonable fear that being in the married connection with the other is no longer safe.

Reference:

1. Reema Aggarwal Vs. Anupam and Ors  Appeal (crl.)  25 of 2004