what is the definition of Cruelty according to Law and judgements.
we may refer to a few decisions of Hon’ble Apex Court rendered under Section 13(1)(i-a). In Shobha
Rani v. Madhukar Reddi [(1988) 1 SCC 105 : 1988 SCC (Cri) 60] , Justice K. Jagannatha Shetty, speaking for the Division Bench, held: (SCC pp. 108-09, paras 4 and 5)
“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. First, the enquiry must begin as to the nature of the cruel treatment. Second, the impact of such treatment on the mind of the spouse. Whether it caused reasonable apprehension that it would be harmful or injurious to live with the other. Ultimately, it is a matter of inference to be drawn by taking into account the nature of the conduct and its effect on the complaining spouse.
There may, however, be cases where the conduct complained of itself is bad enough and per se unlawful or illegal. Then the impact or the injurious effect on the other spouse need not be enquired into or considered. In such cases, the cruelty will be established if the conduct itself is proved or admitted.
They are of varying degrees from house to house or person to person. Therefore, when a spouse makes complaint about the treatment of cruelty by the partner in life or relations, the court should not search for standard in life.
The cruelty alleged may largely depend upon the type of life the parties are accustomed to or their economic and social conditions. It may also depend upon their culture and human values to which they attach importance.
Lord Denning said in Sheldon v. Sheldon [(1966) 2 All
„The categories of cruelty are not closed‟. Each case may be
different. We deal with the conduct of human beings who are not generally similar. Among the human beings there is no limit to the kind of conduct which may constitute cruelty. New type of cruelty may crop up in any case depending upon the human behaviour, capacity or incapability to
tolerate the conduct complained of. Such is the wonderful (sic) realm of cruelty.”
In Vishwanath Agrawal vs. Sarla
Vishwanath Aarawal,has categorically held that cruelty depends upon the social background of parties, the way of life,relations, temperament and emotions.
#divorce#DivorceLawyer#Divorceongroundsofcruelty#divorcelaw#HMA#
