Cruelty is a ground of divorce under various personal laws, and there are certain landmark judgments that deal with the provisions of cruelty as a ground for divorce. The most renowned judgments are that of Narayan Ganesh Dastane v. Sucheta Narayan Dastane, (1975 AIR 1534), Samar Ghosh v. Jaya Ghosh, ((2007) 4 SCC 511) and the mostrecent one of the Supreme Court i.e. Suman Singh v. Sanjay Singh, (AIR 2017 SC 1316).
In the case of Dastane v. Dastane, the Supreme Court has held that whether a spouse has suffered cruelty or not is a subjective matter that courts should decide in a case-specific manner. This ground was made almost similar to the ground of cruelty under Section 10(1) (b) for judicial separation but one distinction was made and that was that the words “persistently or repeatedly” were added.
Samar Ghosh v. Jaya Ghosh discussed in detail as to what all could amount to cruelty; however the list was not an exhaustive one. It is also essential to realize that what may constitute cruelty as a ground for divorce at an earlier point or present point of time, may not be cruelty in a futuristic perspective. Similarly, something which does not amount to cruelty in the present situation, might in turn amount to cruelty in the future. It is a concept that evolves with the evolution of the society and the societal mindset. Such a view has been reiterated in a plethora of landmark judgments such as in the case of Mohd. Hoshan, A.P. & Anr. vs. State of A.P [(2002) 7 SCC 414] holding that:
“Whether one spouse has been guilty of cruelty to the other is essentially a question of fact. The impact of complaints, accusations or taunts on a person amounting to cruelty depends on various factors like the sensitivity of the individual victim concerned, the social background, the environment, education etc. Further, mental cruelty varies from person to person depending on the intensity of sensitivity and the degree of courage or endurance to withstand such mental cruelty. In other words, each case has to be decided on its own facts to decide whether the mental cruelty was established or not.”
In the case of V. Bhagat vs D. Bhagat, 1994 AIR 710, cruelty was defined for the first time and went on to define it as:
“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.”
There is an increased trend wherein parties have been seeking divorce on mere trivial and flimsy grounds. Recently, the Supreme Court in the case of Suman Singh vs. Sanjay Singh, the Court held that:
“28) A petition seeking divorce on some isolated incidents alleged to have occurred 8-10 years prior to filing of the date of petition cannot furnish a subsisting cause of action to seek divorce after 10 years or so of occurrence of such incidents. The incidents alleged should be of recurring nature or continuing one and they should be in near proximity with the filing of the petition. 29) Few isolated incidents of long past and that too found to have been condoned due to compromising behavior of the parties cannot constitute an act of cruelty within the meaning of Section 13 (1)(ia)of the Act.”
The Apex Court in this case rightly adduced that this practice of seeking divorce on flimsy grounds should not be encouraged and has evolved as a landmark judgment in this regard.
