When it was first passed, the Hindu Marriage Act did not have ‘cruelty’ as a ground for

divorce. It was after an amendment in 1976 that this basis became available for seeking both
divorce and judicial separation.
While Parliament did insert the term ‘cruelty’ in the Act, it did not supply an exhaustive
definition. As a result, the term has since been understood according to its interpretation by
the judiciary over the years – during which time the courts have evolved grounds for
providing relief in cases of both physical and mental cruelty.

this was upheld by the Supreme Court in a landmark case of Narayan Ganesh Dastane Vs.
Sucheta Narayan Dastane in 1975. 

This led to an amendment in the Act where cruelty as a ground for divorce was added into the
Act with the inclusion of legal definition to the term cruelty under this Act in 1976. However,
the Court also held that the courts should decide the case on grounds of cruelty only based
upon the subject matter of the case. After the amendment in this act, there was not much
distinction between the grounds of cruelty resulting in judicial separation and grounds of
cruelty resulting in divorce except for two words that are added are “persistently or
repeatedly”. By this addition, the establishment of cruelty as a ground for divorce was given
much more importance than proving it as a ground for judicial separation. This ground was
added under Section 10(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act,1955 and now “Cruelty” has a self-
contained definition.

Now it is not just about physical cruelty, mental cruelty has the same weightage compared
with physical cruelty. Ascertaining mental cruelty is kind of more challenging than proving
physical cruelty. Apart from the physical harm if any woman is inflicted with any kind of
mental stress or has to compromise her mental peace for her spouse or have to constantly go
through mental agony, then that amounts to mental cruelty. However, we will never come to
know about the psychology of an individual and sometimes people are hypersensitive in
nature so in that case if someone accuses someone of having exhibited cruelty then it cannot
be 100% true. Therefore the person will not be entitled to ask for a divorce on grounds of
cruelty. Mental strain can happen in various ways so there are no specific criteria which
would amount to mental cruelty for example, if the spouse is forcing the wife to do
something without the consent or willingness of the wife. Anything not expressed or hidden
by the spouse which creates a sense of doubt also amounts to mental cruelty. 

The Uttrakhand High Court has on 29th August 2020 passed a landmark judgment in a

case maintaining that Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act prescribes a provision
for divorce and recognizes cruelty but doesn’t limit to just physical cruelty on the part of the
spouse as a ground for divorce. Thus, cruelty shall include physical as well as mental
cruelty as a ground of divorce.

The Uttarakhand HC has held that a wife causing mental cruelty to her husband is a valid
ground for dissolution of marriage, making mental cruelty no less ground for marriage
than physical cruelty. The decision came from Justice Ravi Vijay Kumar Mali math and
Justice Narayan Singh Dhanik who heard an appeal filed by the wife against the decree
of divorce passed by the lower court in grounds of cruelty by the wife against her husband.

FACTS OF THE CASE –

The marital dispute includes Rajesh Gaur and Anita Gaur who got married on 12th May
1999 according to Hindu customs and ceremonies and had two children and were living
happily.

According to the husband, the trouble in their paradise came suddenly about five years ago
when he noted a sudden change in the behavior of his wife and several valuable articles went
on missing from the house. Not only this, but he also started receiving threats on the
telephone of people asking him either to return the money else he would be kidnapped.

The husband purported that his wife admitted that she had borrowed money from people at an
interest @10 percent per month, with which she purchased ornaments and clothes on credit.
Due to such repeated threats, he decided to go back to Dehradun taking his wife and
submitted his request to the concerned Gram Panchayat where his wife admitted her mistakes
in writing. On the basis of such admission, the husband filed a suit to the lower court with the
intention to obtain a decree for divorce from his wife under Section 13 of the Hindu
Marriage Act.
However, when the husband moved to the Court for divorce the wife denied all the
allegations made by the husband against her and instead purported that she was being abused
and harassed in the marital relationship and even lodged a case of Bigamy under section 494
of the IPC and lodged a complaint in the Women cell. The lower Court passed a judgment in
favor of the husband and passed a decree of divorce on the basis of the evidence presented by
the husband and holding the fact that the acts alleged by the husband against his wife are
eligible enough to be counted under the category of cruelty.

Thereafter, the wife filed an appeal to the High Court against the judgment of divorce where
the HC affirmed the judgment of the lower court and dismissed the wife’s appeal against the
decree. The High Court maintained that in the present case, there was a failure on the part of
the wife to prove the allegations made by her towards her husband.

The Court concluded that all the acts and conduct, on part of the wife would constitute
cruelty. The cruelty on part of the wife was not a solitary instance of cruelty and she indulged
in repeated acts of cruelty and misbehavior with her husband. Relying on the basis of the fact
that though Cruelty is a ground for divorce the Act doesn’t specifically provide for any one
type of cruelty, thus it includes physical as well as mental cruelty.

Taking a cue from one of the precedents of the Supreme Court judgment in Praveen Mehta
v. Inderjit Mehta, where the SC held that there is no exact way to establish mental
cruelty by direct evidence, but only a matter of interpretation to be observed from the facts
and circumstances of the case.

Likewise, in Raj Talreja v. Kavita Talreja1, where the Court had held that it is impossible
to establish with exactitude.

Narayan Ganesh Dastane vs Sucheta Narayan Dastane 2 (1975): Even before the 1976
amendment, the Supreme Court had examined the concept of legal cruelty. 

 In the case, the court held that the wife threatening she would end her life, and
verbally abusing the husband and his father, among other acts, amounted to mental
cruelty, and granted divorce to the heusband.

1
2017 SCC OnLine SC 462,
2
1975 AIR 1534
Shobha Rani v Madhukar Reddi3 (1988) - The SC held that repeated demands for dowry by
the husband or his relatives was a form of cruelty.

The courts have also given similar relief in other cases, including those of persistent
drunkenness and repeatedly making unfounded allegations.

Naveen Kohli Vs. Neelu Kohli4 [AIR 2004 All 1]

Facts:

The appellant, Naveen Kohli got married to Neelu Kohli on 20.11.1975. Three sons were
born out of the wedlock of the parties.

According to the appellant, the respondent is bad tempered and a woman of rude behaviour.
After marriage, she started quarrelling and misbehaving with the appellant and his parents
and ultimately, the appellant was compelled to leave the parental residence and started to
reside in a rented premises from May 1994.

The appellant alleged that in the month of May 1994, when he along with the respondent and
their children visited Bombay to attend the golden jubilee marriage anniversary of his father-
in-law, he noticed that the respondent was indulging in an indecent manner and found her in a
compromising position with one Biswas Rout. Immediately thereafter, the appellant started
living separately from the respondent since May 1994. The appellant suffered intense
physical and mental torture.

According to the appellant, the respondent had withdrawn Rs. 9,50,000/- from the Bank
Account of the appellant and deposited the same in her account. The appellant alleged that
the respondent got a false first information report registered against him under Sections
420/467/468 and 471 IPC, which was registered as Case No. 156 of 1995. According to him,
the respondent again got a case under Sections 323/324 I.P.C. registered in the police station
3
1988 AIR 121
4
AIR 2004 All 1
Panki, Kanpur City and efforts were made to get the appellant arrested.

Husband field for divorce on grounds of ‘cruelty’, Trial Court recorded specific finding about
wife harassing and torturing husband, mentally, physically and financially. Decree of
dissolution of marriage passed by Trial Court marriage under Section 13, Hindu Marriage
Act.

Wife appealed in High Court and HC held evidence on record not properly appreciated by
Trial Court. A finding that husband immorally cohabited with another lady recorded by the
High Court. On that ground held, that it amounted to misconduct and was uncondonable for
the purpose of Section 13(1)(a) of the Hindu Marriage Act and suit for divorce dismissed.
Hence, the husband is appealing in SC for the decree of divorce.

Judgement:

From the analysis and evaluation of the entire evidence, it is clear that the respondent has
resolved to live in agony only to make life a miserable hell for the appellant as well. This
type of adamant and callous attitude, in the context of the facts of this case, leaves no manner
of doubt in our mind that the respondent is bent upon treating the appellant with mental
cruelty.

The respondent against the appellant has filed number of cases including criminal complaints
and every effort has been made to harass and torture him and even to put the appellant behind
the bars by the respondent.

SC held that the word "cruelty" is used in Section 13(1)(i)(a) of the Act in the context of
human conduct or behavior in relation to or in respect of matrimonial duties or obligations.
Physical violence is not absolutely essential to constitute cruelty. A consistent course of
conduct inflicting immeasurable mental agony and torture may constitute cruelty. 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. Hence SC set aside
the judgment of the High Court and directs that the marriage between the parties should be
dissolved according to the provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
In the landmark judgement of Mayadevi Vs. Jagdish Prasad in February 2007, the Supreme
Court held that any kind of mental cruelty faced by either of the spouses not just the woman
but men as well can apply for a divorce on grounds of cruelty. In this case, the respondent
filed an application of divorce after a repeated course of cruelty inflicted by his wife and as
alleged by the husband (respondent) that the wife did not provide food to him and his
children and blamed the husband and his family members instead. 

Hence, a man is also entitled to divorce if he is inflicted with any kind of cruelty.

Malthi Ravi M.D. v. b.v. Ravi M.D. (2014) 7 SCC 640

In this case the evidences produced through records indicated that there were instances of
mental cruelty and hence the Hon’ble Supreme Court granted the decree of divorce.
 

here are other certain grounds on which cruelty can be proved against wife-

 Persistent denial of food,

 Insisting on perverse sexual conduct,

 Constantly locking a woman out of the house,

 Denying the woman access to children, thereby causing mental torture,

 Physical violence,

 Taunting, demoralising and putting down the woman with the intention of causing
mental torture,

 Confining the woman at home and not allowing her normal social intercourse,

 Abusing children in their mother’s presence with the intention of causing her mental
torture,

 Denying the paternity of the children with the intention of inflicing mental pain upon
the mother, and

 Threatening divorce unless dowry is given.

Cruelty may be in the form of physical as well as mental by the act either of the husband or
the wife. Though, it is the women who have always been subjected to be tortured and
harassed by the husband and relatives. Commencement of creation women are been subject to
cruelty, harassment, victims of dowry demands, dowry death etc. their lives were never easy
and living in the shadow and protection of men was tormenting. Cruelty is the main ground to
seek divorce as defined under ‘Sec 13(1) (i-a)’ of ‘The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955’ and party
who is filing a case must prove that living between husband and wife became impossible. We
have several laws like domestic violence act, section 304B IPC and many provisions made
applicable for the protection of the women, which has got recognition from our constitutional
law., in fact saying this will not be proper as cases of torture and harassment against the
husband by the wife is increasing day by day.

According to the Decision by the learned single judge of Punjab and Haryana High Court
AIR 1996, the filing of a complaint against the husband under Section 498 A of IPC can be
considered as a ground of mental cruelty.

In  Samar Ghosh v. Jaya Ghosh, (2007) 4 SCC 511, Court considered the concept
of cruelty and referring to Oxford Dictionary defines ”cruelty‘ as ”the quality of being cruel;
disposition of inflicting suffering; delight in or indifference to another’s pain; mercilessness;
hard-heartedness’.

We can articulate that cruelty refers to violent acts. However, a mere quarrel, petty
outrageous behavior or differences between the spouses does not come in the ambit of cruelty
because this is something that is common in a day to day married life. Conducts that would
amount to cruelty should be grave and severe in nature. Grave violence doesn’t always mean
physical violence. Though physical violence is an essential factor that constitutes cruelty but
apart from that a continuous process of ill-treatment or mental or physical torture to either of
the spouse would also amount to cruelty

In A . Jayachandra vs. Aneel Kaur (2005) 2 SCC 22, the court observed as under:

“the expression ‘cruelty’ has not been defined in the Hindu Marriage Act. Crulety can be
physical or metal. Cruelty which is a ground for dissolution of marriage may be defined as
willful and unjustifiable conduct of such character to cause danger to life, limb or health,
bodily or mental, or as to give rise to a reasonable apprehension of such danger. The question
of mental 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 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 of cruelty”