SUPREME COURT ON Mental
cruelty and its PARAMETER
“A family is
the eternal school of social life” is an old adage. However, due to rat
race in life of late resulting into hectic life style with an avid aim of
catering to the need and luxury, as also to meet the perceived deadline of
success, has its own fall out. The nonchalant aspiration has been
instrumental in causing problem and accentuating it further. The usual
complaint in a family has always been inherent in a system, but the difference now,
often catapult in disputes. The disputes has taken shape as a pattern, hence,
necessity of redressal mechanism is to be in place. In this backdrop, the law is
thus codified by way of several enactments, right after independence. The Hindu
Marriage Act 1955, The Hindu Succession Act 1956, provision of 125 included in
Cr.P.C apart from 498-A in Indian Penal Code are the instances. The Domestic
Violence Act 2005 etc is also a comprehensive law framed. These are just to
name a few enactments. These are related to family law and revolve around family
disputes and these enactments have also periodically undergone changes by way
of amendments.
Another crucial part in this context shall rotate around
the genesis of disputes and what constitute wrongs which is actionable as per
law and within the sphere of family. The institution of marriage is a precursor
to making of a family and differences, when takes irreversible route, leads to
disputes. The unresolved disputes enters into court rooms and the onerous duty
is cast on the courts to find out the prospect of re-union, rehabilitation or
settlement between spouses, in as much as matrimonial disputes primarily
relates to a spouse. Whether the separation between the couples could be
avoided and if not, what shall constitute breakdown of marriage and whether a
spouse shall be entitled to annulment of marriage shall be based on the
judicial principles that has evolved over the years. The cruelty, desertion and
such other causes are illustrated in Section 13 of The Hindu Marriage Act 1955
as grounds for seeking divorce. In the present write up, however, the
discussion shall be confined to the grounds
of cruelty for seeking divorce. What constitute “cruelty” is of paramount importance. Still further, whether,
cruelty is an act or series of act which is visible such as acts of physical
cruelty or whether cruelty can be categorized as “mental cruelty”. What are the parameter laid down in this regard.
The efforts herein shall be to analyze that spectrum.
The term “cruelty” is defined in various
dictionaries. Some of the definitions are as under:
The Shorter Oxford Dictionary
It defines 'cruelty' as 'the quality of being cruel; disposition of inflicting suffering;
delight in or indifference to another's pain; mercilessness; hard-heartedness'.
The
Black's Law Dictionary [8th Edition, 2004]
"Mental Cruelty - As a ground for divorce, one spouse's
course of conduct (not involving actual violence) that creates such anguish
that it endangers the life, physical health, or mental health of the other
spouse."
Halsbury's Laws of England [Vol.13, 4th Edition Para 1269]
"The
general rule in all cases of cruelty is that the entire matrimonial relationship
must be considered, and that rule is of special value when the cruelty consists
not of violent acts but of injurious reproaches, complaints, accusations or
taunts. In cases where no violence is averred, it is undesirable to consider
judicial pronouncements with a view to creating certain categories of acts or
conduct as having or lacking the nature or quality which renders them capable
or incapable in all circumstances of amounting to cruelty; for it is the effect
of the conduct rather than its nature which is of paramount importance in
assessing a complaint of cruelty. Whether one spouse has been guilty of cruelty
to the other is essentially a question of fact and previously decided cases
have little, if any, value. The court should bear in mind the physical and
mental condition of the parties as well as their social status, and should
consider the impact of the personality and conduct of one spouse on the mind of
the other, weighing all incidents and quarrels between the spouses from that
point of view; further, the conduct alleged must be examined in the light of
the complainant's capacity for endurance and the extent to which that capacity
is known to the other spouse. Malevolent intention is not essential to cruelty
but it is an important element where it exits."
24 American Jurisprudence 2d
"Mental
Cruelty as a course of unprovoked conduct toward one's spouse which causes
embarrassment, humiliation, and anguish so as to render the spouse's life
miserable and unendurable. The plaintiff must show a course of conduct on the
part of the defendant which so endangers the physical or mental health of the
plaintiff as to render continued cohabitation unsafe or improper, although the
plaintiff need not establish actual instances of physical abuse."
SUPREME
COURT ON MENTAL CRUELTY
1. A Three (3) Judge bench of the Supreme Court in a matter
captioned as Joydeep Majumdar Versus Bharti Jaiswal Majumdar, Civil Appeal
Nos. 3786-3787 OF 2020 has held in para 10:
“For
considering dissolution of marriage at
the instance of a spouse, who alleges mental cruelty, the result of such mental
cruelty must be such that it is not possible to continue with the matrimonial
relationship. In other words, the wronged party cannot be expected to condone
such conduct and continue to live with his/her spouse. The degree of tolerance
will vary from one couple to another and the Court will have to bear in mind
the background, the level of education and also the status of the parties, in
order to determine whether the cruelty alleged is sufficient to justify
dissolution of marriage, at the instance of the wronged party. In Samar Ghosh Vs. Jaya Ghosh (2007)
4 SCC 511, this Court
gave illustrative cases where inference of mental cruelty could be drawn even
while emphasizing that no uniform standard can be laid down and each case will
have to be decided on its own facts”.
2.
Probably, the law as
regards the cruelty owed its genesis to
a celebrated case reported as N.G Dastane Vs S Dastane (1975) 2
SCC 326. The Supreme Court had in that case had occasion to examine in detail
the position of mental cruelty. At page 337, para 30 of NG Dastane (Supra) it
is observed as under :-
"The
enquiry therefore has to be whether the conduct charges as cruelty is of such a
character as to cause in the mind of the petitioner a reasonable apprehension
that it will be harmful or injurious for him to live with the respondent."
3.
Similarly, in Siraj Mohamed Khan Janmohamed khan Vs Haizunnisa Yasin khan & Ors (1981)
4 SCC 250, the pith and substance of observation of Supreme Court is that the
concept of legal cruelty changes according to the changes and advancement of
social concept and standards of living. Consequent
on the advancement of our social mores, this feature has obtained legislative
recognition to the effect that a second marriage is a sufficient ground for
separate residence and maintenance. Moreover, to establish legal cruelty, it is
not necessary that physical violence should be used. Continuous ill-treatment
as a pattern, cessation of marital intercourse, studied neglect, indifference
on the part of the husband, and an assertion on the part of the husband as
regards the chastity of wife are such factors which may lead to mental cruelty.
4.
In the case of Shobha Rani Vs Madhukar Reddi (1988) 1 SCC
105, the Supreme Court had further examined the concept of cruelty. We know
that the word 'cruelty' has not been
defined in the Hindu Marriage Act. Though, it has been used in Section
13 (1) (i) (a) of the Act in the context of human conduct or behaviour in
relation to or in respect of matrimonial duties or obligations. A course of
conduct of one spouse may have adverse effect, in fact, a cascading effect on the
other. There is no straight jacket formula in this regard. It may be mental or
physical, intentional or unintentional. If it is physical, it can be manifest
and its degree can probably be ascertained. However, mental cruelty shall
presuppose the enquiry so as to infer the nature of the cruel treatment and if
so, what impact did it cause on the mind of the other spouse. Whether it could lead
to reasonable apprehension that it would be harmful or injurious to live with
the other are the factors that is to be looked into. It is a matter of
inference by taking into consideration the nature and conduct of complaining spouse
against other partner. Another dimension of the mental cruelty shall be whether
it was intentional or not. In essence, however, it may not be material so long
as the conduct or acts of a spouse leads to mental cruelty. It therefore may follow
that no excuse could be accorded or claimed by a spouse hat there has been no
deliberate or willful ill-treatment.
5.
In V. Bhagat Vs D Bhagat (1994) 1 SCC
337, the Supreme Court has observed as under:
"16. Mental
cruelty in Section 13 (1) (i-a) can broadly be defined as that 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 situation must be such that the wronged party
cannot reasonably be asked to put up with such conduct and continue to live
with the other party. It is not necessary to prove that the mental cruelty is
such as to cause injury to the health of the petitioner. While arriving at such
conclusion, regard must be had to the social status, educational level of the
parties, the society they move in, the possibility or otherwise of the parties
ever living together in case they are already living apart and all other
relevant facts and circumstances which it is neither possible nor desirable to
set out exhaustively. What is cruelty in one case may not amount to cruelty in
another case. It is a matter to be determined in each case having regard to the
facts and circumstances of that case. If it is a case of accusations and
allegations, regard must also be had to the context in which they were
made."
6. In Chetan
Dass Vs Kamla Devi (2001) 4 SCC 250, it is held as under:
14. "Matrimonial
matters are matters of delicate human and emotional relationship. It demands
mutual trust, regard, respect, love and affection with sufficient play for
reasonable adjustments with the spouse. The relationship has to conform to the
social norms as well. The matrimonial conduct has now come to be governed by
statute framed, keeping in view such norms and changed social order. It is
sought to be controlled in the interest of the individuals as well as in
broader perspective, for regulating matrimonial norms for making of a
well-knit, healthy and not a disturbed and porous society. The institution of
marriage occupies an important place and role to play in the society, in
general. Therefore, it would not be appropriate to apply any submission of
"irretrievably broken marriage" as a straitjacket formula for grant
of relief of divorce. This aspect has to be considered in the background of the
other facts and circumstances of the case."
7. In Savitri Pandey Vs Prem Chandra Pandey (2002) 2 SCC 73, the Supreme Court has stated
as under:
"Mental cruelty is the conduct of
other spouse which causes mental suffering or fear to the matrimonial life of
the other. "Cruelty", therefore, postulates a treatment of the
petitioner with such cruelty as to cause a reasonable apprehension in his or
her mind that it would be harmful or injurious for the petitioner to live with
the other party. Cruelty, however, has to be distinguished from the ordinary
wear and tear of family life. It cannot be decided on the basis of the
sensitivity of the petitioner and has to be adjudged on the basis of the course
of conduct which would, in general, be dangerous for a spouse to live with the
other."
8. In Gannath
Pattnaik Vs State of Orissa (2002) 2 SCC 619 , the Supreme Court has observed
as under:
"The concept of cruelty and its
effect varies from individual to individual, also depending upon the social and
economic status to which such person belongs. "Cruelty" for the
purposes of constituting the offence under the aforesaid section need not be
physical. Even mental torture or abnormal behaviour may amount to cruelty and
harassment in a given case."
9. Yet again, the
Supreme Court had occasion to examine the “mental cruelty” in a matter reported
as Parveen
Mehta Inderjit Mehta (2002) 5 SCC 706 which reads as under:
“21.
Cruelty for the purpose of Section 13 (1) (i-a) is to be taken as a
behaviour by one spouse towards the other, which causes reasonable apprehension
in the mind of the latter that it is not safe for him or her to continue the
matrimonial relationship with the other. Mental cruelty is a state of mind and
feeling with one of the spouses due to the behaviour or behavioural pattern by
the other. Unlike the case of physical cruelty, mental cruelty is difficult to establish
by direct evidence. It is necessarily a matter of inference to be drawn from
the facts and circumstances of the case. A feeling of anguish, disappointment
and frustration in one spouse caused by the conduct of the other can only be
appreciated on assessing the attending facts and circumstances in which the two
partners of matrimonial life have been living. The inference has to be drawn
from the attending facts and circumstances taken cumulatively. In case of
mental cruelty it will not be a correct approach to take an instance of
misbehaviour in isolation and then pose the question whether such behaviour is
sufficient by itself to cause mental cruelty. The approach should be to take
the cumulative effect of the facts and circumstances emerging from the evidence
on record and then draw a fair inference whether the petitioner in the divorce
petition has been subjected to mental cruelty due to conduct of the
other."
10. In
A
jayachandra Vs Aneel kaur (2005) 2
SCC 22, the Supreme Court
observed as under:
"The expression
"cruelty" has not been defined in the 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. Cruelty, as noted above, includes mental cruelty, which falls within
the purview of a matrimonial wrong. Cruelty need not be physical. If from the
conduct of the spouse, same is established and/or an inference can be
legitimately drawn that the treatment of the spouse is such that it causes an
apprehension in the mind of the other spouse, about his or her mental welfare
then this conduct amounts to cruelty. In a delicate human relationship like
matrimony, one has to see the probabilities of the case. The concept proof
beyond the shadow of doubt, is to be applied to criminal trials and not to
civil matters and certainly not to matters of such delicate personal
relationship as those of husband and wife. Therefore, one has to see what are
the probabilities in a case and legal cruelty has to be found out, not merely
as a matter of fact, but as the effect on the mind of the complainant spouse
because of the acts or omissions of the other. Cruelty may be physical or
corporeal or may be mental. In physical cruelty, there can be tangible and
direct evidence, but in the case of mental cruelty there may not at the same
time be direct evidence. In cases where there is no direct evidence, Courts are
required to probe into the mental process and mental effect of incidents that
are brought out in evidence. It is in this view that one has to consider the
evidence in matrimonial disputes”..
11. The Supreme Court in Vinita Saxena Vs Pankaj Pandit (2006) 3 SCC
778 it is observed :
"As to what constitutes the
required mental cruelty for the purposes of the said provision, will not depend
upon the numerical count of such incidents or only on the continuous course of
such conduct but really go by the intensity, gravity and stigmatic impact of it
when meted out even once and the deleterious effect of it on the mental attitude,
necessary for maintaining a conducive matrimonial home.If the taunts,
complaints and reproaches are of ordinary nature only, the court perhaps need
consider the further question as to whether their continuance or persistence
over a period of time render, what normally would, otherwise, not be so serious
an act to be so injurious and painful as to make the spouse charged with them
genuinely and reasonably conclude that the maintenance of matrimonial home is
not possible any longer."
The discussion as culled out from
above shall clearly reflect that to constitute cruelty, the conduct complained
of should be "grave and
weighty" so as to leads to a conclusion that the aggrieved spouse
cannot be reasonably expected to live with the other spouse. Of course, the
same shall have to be different than "ordinary wear and tear of married
life". What shall have to be considered in this regard is the
background of a spouse, social status of parties, their education, physical and
mental conditions, customs and traditions. There cannot be a straight jacket
formula to the effect that what would constitute cruelty. What may be of
significance is that it should be of such a nature so as to satisfy the
conscience of the Court that the relationship between the parties had
deteriorated to such an extent so that it would be impossible for them to live
together without mental agony, torture or distress. Therefore what may follow
is that to be entitled to secure divorce on the premise of cruelty, physical
violence is not absolutely essential to constitute cruelty, rather a consistent
course of conduct inflicting immeasurable mental agony and torture may well
constitute cruelty within the meaning of Section 10 of the Act.
Mental cruelty may consist of verbal abuses and insults by using filthy and abusive
language leading to constant disturbance of mental peace of the other party.
CONCLUSION
The word of caution
in this regard emanating from Supreme Court as a fait accompli is that a Court dealing with the petition for divorce on the
ground of cruelty should bear in mind that the problems before it are those of
human beings and the psychological changes in a spouse's conduct have to be
borne in mind before disposing of the petition for divorce. Thus, even insignificant
or trifling issue or conduct may cause pain in the mind of another. In order to
construe any act or conduct as cruelty, it must touch a certain pitch of
severity and in all pervasiveness. The Court is required to weigh the gravity.
It has to be further appreciated if the conduct was such that no reasonable
person would tolerate or may possibly tolerates. It is also to be seen if it would
be reasonable to expect from a victim to endure it as a part of normal human
life. Needless to say, every matrimonial conduct which may cause annoyance to
the other may not amount to cruelty. In ordinary course of life mere trivial
irritations, quarrels between spouses, cannot be ruled out in a matter of
course and thus may not amount to cruelty. It however should follow that Cruelty
in matrimonial life may be of unknown quantity, unfounded variety and can be
subtle or brutal or both. Moreover, it may also be by words, gestures or by mere
silence. It may be violent or non-violent."
---------------
Anil
K Khaware
Founder
& Senior Associate
Societylawandjustice.com
