The article is written by Vanshika Shukla. It aims at discussing this case at length. It attempts to address all parts of the case, including facts, arguments, provisions, case laws, judgement and the concerns that follow. This article also aims to provide a case analysis based on the rationale that supports the whole case.

Introduction 

The Hindu Marriage Act, 1995 allows either of the spouses to seek divorce on the grounds of cruelty. The definition and application of the term “cruelty” have differed over time because of the evolving nature of humans as well as their endurance to resist it. Several courts  have opined and reiterated the difficulties of this issue, emphasising the importance of considering each case’s specific circumstances. In this article, we’ll analyse the case of Vinita Saxena vs. Pankaj Pandit (2006) to understand the intricacies of cruelty, the types of cruelty and its evolving nature in every era. The term ‘cruelty’ has not been defined within the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955,  to allow the courts the option to interpret the phrase properly as per the situation.

Details of the case

Case name: Vinita Saxena v. Pankaj Pandit

Download Now

Case no.: Civil Appeal No. 1687 of 2006

Equivalent citation: 2006 (3) SCC 778

Acts involved: Hindu Marriage Act, 1955  

Important provisions: Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act and Article 136 of the Constitution of India  

Facts of the case 

The appellant (Vinita Saxena) and the respondent (Pankaj Pandit) were married as per  Hindu rites and customs on 7th February 1993. As per the appellant, the marriage lasted for only five months and was never consummated since the respondent could not carry out his marital responsibilities. The appellant claims that the respondent’s mother used to treat her with utmost cruelty, both mentally and physically, and the reasoning behind this treatment was the respondent’s mental condition, as he was suffering from Paranoid Schizophrenia. The appellant was unaware of his condition as the respondent and his parents had failed to inform her about his mental disorder, that he was being treated, and that he was under heavy medications prior to the marriage. She learned about the respondent’s mental condition after the marriage, as the respondent had been receiving constant treatment and observations from several doctors for the condition even before the marriage. Dr. C.R. Samanta, who was a consultant psychiatrist at Aashlok Hospital, had diagnosed that the respondent suffered from schizophrenia and depression.

On 4th July 1993, the appellant attempted to share the problems she was experiencing with the respondent and her mother-in-law, who strongly disagreed and accused the appellant of attempting to defame the respondent. At her instance, the appellant was viciously beaten by the respondent, which made him so terrified that he swallowed “Baygon Spray” to attempt suicide. The appellant and her brother got the respondent admitted to the hospital, where he was prescribed certain medicines by Dr. C.R. Samanta including Triperidol, which is given in cases of acute and chronic psychoses, anxiety disorders, mania, and schizophrenia. The situation worsened on 8.7.1993 and 9.7.1993. Again, at the encouragement of the respondent’s mother, the respondent viciously slapped and beat the appellant, and she was not even permitted to eat that day or the next morning, i.e., on 9.7.1993. Ultimately, the appellant’s mother-in-law and the respondent shoved and kicked her out of the matrimonial house, and she was not allowed to return.

The appellant filed for dissolution of marriage under Section 13(1)(ia) and (Section 13(1)(iii) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, alleging mental and physical cruelty and the respondent’s mental illness. The Trial Court, in its order dated 15.5.1993, on the  basis of facts, averments made by the parties, as well as the medical documents given on file, came to the decision that a letter of request should be sent to the Medical Superintendent, L.N.J.P. Hospital, to form a panel of doctors in order to examine the respondent and report on his mental state. However, the High Court reversed this ruling in a Revision Petition brought by the respondent. After the marriage ended, the appellant continued her studies and earned an M.S. (Structural Engineering) from IIT Delhi before leaving for her Ph.D. course in the United States in 1996.

The appellant, her father, Dr. D.S. Arora, Medical Superintendent, Aashlok Hospital and Dr. Kuldeep Kumar of Safdarjung Hospital provided recorded statements before the trial court. The respondent, however, had his statement recorded, and purposely skipped his deposition in the witness box before the end of the cross-examination. The trial court dismissed the divorce petition. The High Court further dismissed the appellant’s appeal. The appellant, who was disappointed by this, appealed to the Supreme Court through a special leave petition. In response to this, a counter affidavit was filed by the respondent.

High Court judgement

The appellant, aggrieved by the dismissal of the appeal in Trial Court, filed an appeal before the High Court. The High Court dismissed the appellant’s appeal, ruling that the respondent does not suffer from schizophrenia and that there is insufficient evidence on record to establish the cause of cruelty. The High Court further held that the incidents of cruelty were not so severe as to fall within the definition of cruelty, thus dismissing the appellant’s appeal through an order dated 10.9.2004. The High Court additionally stated that the testimony of the doctors, which the appellant provided as evidence in order to prove that the respondent had schizophrenia, could not be investigated since the respondent was not receiving treatment from those doctors. 

Issues raised 

  1. Whether the respondent was suffering from paranoid schizophrenia?
  2. Was the appellant subjected to cruelty by and at the insistence of the respondent?
  3. Whether the decree for divorce should be granted in favour of the appellant?

Arguments of the parties

Petitioner 

The appellant appealed to the Honourable Supreme Court through her counsel, Ms. Kamini Jaiswal. The counsel reaffirmed the allegations made in the appeal, submitting several grounds for granting divorce to the appellant. Firstly, non-consummation of the marriage in itself constitutes mental cruelty to a married woman. Additionally, the respondent’s attempted suicide will also amount to mental cruelty and harassment. The appellant had resided with the respondent for barely five months and during this short period, she was brutally assaulted by the respondent and his mother. 

Regarding the documents and prescriptions submitted by the doctors, the counsel informed the bench that they were official records and no evidence was found to prove them as fabricated. The medical prescriptions and doctor’s evidence clearly indicate that the respondent was getting treated by Dr. Samantha and was diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia. 

The respondent had purposely failed to complete his cross-examination, in order to avoid testifying in the witness box, thus leading to the conclusion of his testimony. The appellant was denied the marital bliss of physical relations due to the respondent’s incompetency, which itself constitutes cruelty. Furthermore, the respondent’s threat to commit suicide, as indicated by his consumption of “Baygon spray,” would also fall within the ambit of cruelty. 

Although Dr. Samantha was not alive to testify, his medical records were authenticated by Dr. D.S. Arora, the Medical Superintendent, who confirmed the respondent’s treatment and diagnosis of paranoid schizophrenia. Similarly, the absence of Dr. Abhyankar should not render the prescription as evidence invalid because another doctor had produced and authenticated the entire record. The most essential factor is the fact that the marriage between the appellant and the respondent lasted only five months, and they have been living separately for the past 13 years.

Respondent

The respondent in this case was Pankaj Pandit, the appellant’s husband and was represented by Mr. Dhruv Mehta. The learned counsel countered the grounds of divorce given by the appellant’s counsel by referencing the findings and decisions of both the Trial Court and the High Court, which were to dismiss the appellant’s appeal. He argued that merely proving that the respondent suffers from a mental disorder cannot be considered a sufficient ground for divorce under Section 13(1)(iii) of the Act. Instead, the appellant must show that the respondent’s behaviour due to the mental disorder is so severe that the appellant cannot reasonably be expected to live with the respondent. This cannot be considered to be fulfilled simply by proving that a mental disorder such as schizophrenia exists. It needs to be proven by showcasing the disorder’s seriousness and how it will act as a hindrance in the continuation of the marital relationship.

To support his argument, the counsel cited the case of Ram Narain Gupta vs. Smt. Rameshwari Gupta (1988), which emphasises that the degree of mental disorder must be such that it makes cohabitation unreasonable. Not all mental abnormalities justify the dissolution of a marriage; the disorder must reach a level where living together becomes impossible. This perspective was also upheld by the Karnataka High Court, the Calcutta High Court, and the Himachal Pradesh High Court. Moreover, in the case of Rakesh K. Gupta vs. Ram Gopal Agarwala & Ors. (2005), a custody battle was ongoing between the parents for the child. In this case, the Supreme Court granted custody of the child to the mother even though her husband had alleged of her suffering from paranoid schizophrenia. This indicates that a mere diagnosis of a disease cannot be considered as a sufficient grounds for a divorce decree.

According to the counsel, the evidence given by the appellant was inadequate to establish that the respondent was suffering from a mental illness. The doctors who supposedly treated the respondent were not called as witnesses, instead, the appellant produced prescriptions issued by these doctors, which were validated by the Medical Superintendent of Aashlok Hospital. This approach, the counsel claimed, did not clearly prove that the respondent was suffering from paranoid schizophrenia, as required by statute. He emphasised that sub-clause (iii) of Section 13(1) requires proof that the appellant’s mental illness is so severe that he cannot fairly be expected to reside with the respondent. This concept of statutory interpretation assures that every word in the legislation is given full effect by the courts, as the Parliament does not waste words or say something in vain. To support his argument, he cited two decisions, Shin Etsu Chemical Company Ltd. vs. Aksh Optifibre Ltd. (2005) and Union of India vs. Popular Construction (2001).Thus, the counsel stated that since the appellant had failed to fulfil the statutory requirement, the appeal should fail.

As for the allegations of cruelty under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Act, the counsel argued that the alleged behaviour must be serious and severe enough to make it unreasonable for the appellant to continue residing with the respondent in a marital relationship. Ordinary disputes and differences between spouses cannot be considered within the ambit of cruelty. For this, he cited the case of A. Jayachandra vs. Aneel Kaur (2004), in which it has been stated that for behaviour to be constituted under cruelty, it must reach such a level of intensity that no reasonable person would be able to endure it. After reviewing all the evidence presented, the Trial Court came to the conclusion that the conduct complained of did not constitute cruelty and that the grounds for divorce under Section 13(1)(i-a) were not established. The Trial Court had the opportunity to view the respondent’s behaviour , and the decision taken by the court should not be reversed unless it is revealed to be irrational. The lawyer further emphasised the significance of preserving the matrimonial home, citing the case of Savitri Pandey vs. Prem Chandra Pandey (2002).

The counsel also addressed the appellant’s claim that she and the respondent had lived separately for 13 years and that this would warrant a divorce order. He argued that the claim was unjustified and should be rejected by the Supreme Court, citing the case of A. Jayachandra vs. Aneel Kaur to prove his point. He further stated that both the Trial Court and the High Court issued similar decisions and had rejected the appellant’s divorce petition under Sections 13(1)(i-a) and (iii) of the Act. The counsel argued that as per  Article 136 of the Indian Constitution, the Supreme Court should not intervene with the judgements of both courts unless they are proved to be irrational. The counsel further stated that the decisions were well-reasoned and were made on the basis of a comprehensive examination of the evidence presented. He cited the case of Savitri Pandey vs. Prem Chandra Pandey, where a similar situation had occurred and the Supreme Court decided not to interfere with concurrent findings of fact to further prove his point. 

Laws discussed in Vinita Saxena vs. Pankaj Pandit (2006)

The case laws and provisions discussed within the case play an important role in reaching the conclusion. In order to understand and analyse the case, these provisions and case laws need to be understood beforehand. The provisions and cases referred to in this case law have been listed as follows:

Provisions

Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955

Section 13 of the HMA, 1955 deals with divorce. As per this section, any authorised marriage can be dissolved by a decree of divorce, through a petition brought by the husband or wife. The decree of divorce shall be provided for the following reasons:

  • Voluntary sexual intercourse with any any other person apart from the spouse after the authorisation of marriage
  • Treated the spouse with cruelty after authorisation of marriage
  • Abandoned the petitioner for a continuous period of two years or more prior to the petition being presented
  • Converted to another religion and stopped being a Hindu
  • has been permanently mentally ill or has suffered from a mental illness to the point where it is not reasonable for the petitioner to live with the respondent.

Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955

This clause states that a spouse shall have the right to file for divorce via a petition, if the petitioner has been treated with cruelty by the respondent after the authorisation of marriage 

Section 13(1)(iii) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955

This clause states that a spouse shall have the right to file for divorce via a petition, if the respondent is suffering from an incurable unsound mind or suffering from a mental disease to the point where it is not reasonable for the petitioner to live with the respondent.

Article 136 of the Constitution of India

Article 136 of the Constitution constitutes the Supreme Court’s special leave to appeal. This means that any court or tribunal operating within Indian territory may be given special leave to appeal from any verdict on any subject at the discretion of the Supreme Court (excluding the military tribunal). 

Case laws surrounding Vinita Saxena vs. Pankaj Pandit (2006)

Rajani vs. Subramonian (1988)

In this case, the Kerala High Court has stated that a charge of cruelty must be considered while keeping in mind a few factors. This includes the parties’ cultural past as well as economic, and social backgrounds. As per the current civilisation standards and the society’s cultural history and customs, a young and well-educated woman (such as the appellant herein), is not expected to bear domestic harassment, be it in any form, i.e., mental, physical, deliberate, or inadvertent. Her feelings must be acknowledged, her ambitions and aspirations have to be considered while making any adjustments, and her fundamental needs and rights have to be met, regardless of any complaints caused by behavioural differences. This belief in itself emphasises the fact that cruelty cannot be judged on its own, it has to be considered by going through the parties’ lifestyles and values.

Narayan Ganesh Dastane vs. Sucheta Narayan Dastane (1975)

In this case, the Supreme Court stated that its role as judge isn’t based on the criteria of an ideal husband or wife; rather, it is to address the specific issues between the two unique individuals involved. The court has noted the fact that perfect spouses, assuming that they do exist, would unlikely ever require any form of legal intervention in order to solve their marriage troubles. Even if these spouses clashed at times, their ideal characteristics would have allowed them to ignore or overcome their problems without the need for judicial intervention.Through this belief, the court highlighted the reality of dealing with actual, imperfect human relationships that are formed rather than the imaginary, perfect, flawless ones.

Rita Nijhawan vs Balakishan Nijhawan (1973)

In this case, the Delhi High Court has talked about the essential presence of sex in a marriage,and that a marriage would be unsustainable without it. The court emphasised the need for healthy and harmonious sexual engagement in keeping marriage alive. It even improves a woman’s mental and physical health. Lack of sexual fulfilment can hurt a marriage and result in despair and dissatisfaction. In this case, the court has recognised the fact that dissatisfaction in sexual interactions can become a cause of injury in marital relationships, and that sexual harmony is an essential requirement for a good marriage.

Alka vs. Abhinesh Chandra (1991)

In this case, the Court has discussed ‘mental disorder’ as a ground for divorce under Section 13(1)(iii). It specified that the mental disorder must be so severe that it makes it unreasonable for the appellant to live with the respondent. Particularly for young couples, if the mental disorder is such that sexual relations and procreation are impossible, this can be a valid reason to annul the marriage. This idea is based on the principle that one of the primary purposes of Hindu marriage is to have children, and the sanskar of marriage is advised for progeny and offspring.

Digvijay Singh vs. Pratap Kumari (1969)

In this case, the Supreme Court ruled that a person shall be considered impotent if their mental or physical behaviour makes it highly unlikely for them to uphold their duties and consummate the marriage. According to the legislation, this condition must exist before marriage and  be maintained until legal action is initiated. Therefore, if a spouse wants to secure an annulment decree, he/she has to establish the fact that the other spouse was impotent before the marriage and this behaviour continued even during the period the legal actions were initiated.

Shobha Rani vs. Madhukar Reddi (1988)

In this case, the Supreme Court has accepted that every case of alleged cruelty in marriage is distinct as the human behaviour is very diverse and unpredictable. The court emphasised that there isn’t a particular limit as to what comes within the ambit of cruelty and what doesn’t because new forms of cruelty might be formed. The form of cruelty depends on an individual’s behaviour and a person’s ability to bear the reported cruelty.

The court further highlighted the meaning of cruelty and its evolution in accordance with  changing societal standards and personal circumstances. In any case where the spouse complains of cruelty, the court should not go by a fixed standard but rather assess the specific facts and circumstances of that certain case, i.e., the parties’ lifestyles, economic and social background, and cultural beliefs. Judges and attorneys are also required to refrain from imposing their own personal beliefs or relying heavily on the precedents, as there is a possibility of a generational gap between the judge and the parties concerned. Thus, the Supreme Court highlights the importance of recognising the unique circumstances of each and every case rather than taking the same approach to assess the situation in all cases.

Harbhajan Singh Monga vs Amarjeet Kaur (1985)

In this case, the Madhya Pradesh High Court has stated that a spouse’s attempt to commit suicide shall be regarded as a form of cruelty on the other spouse. 

Judgement in Vinita Saxena vs. Pankaj Pandit (2006)

The judgement was given by a division bench comprised of Judges Ruma Pal & Dr. AR. Lakshman.

After assessing the facts, circumstances, and human elements involved in the case, the court came to the conclusion that it had found sufficient grounds to approve the appeal and provide the appellant relief against the respondent. The Supreme Court further held that the decision taken by the lower court and High Court had caused considerable unfairness to the appellant and forced her to stay in a dead relationship with the respondent for more than 13 years.  The Court recognised the appellant’s plight and deemed it acceptable to interfere under Article 136 of the Indian Constitution, thus overturning the lower courts’ decisions. 

The appeal was granted, and the appellant obtained a divorce decree against the respondent. The Trial Court and High Court’s decisions were overturned, with no costs imposed on the parties.

Rationale behind the Judgement

The division bench took into consideration the arguments made by the counsels of both parties, i.e., the respondent and the appellant and decided that the Trial Court had overlooked the appellant’s uncontested evidence, which supported the case on all counts.  Medical doctors who had testified as witnesses and provided the respondent’s original medical record demonstrated beyond question that he suffers from a mental condition. Further grounds for divorce based on mental insanity/mental disease are distinct from cruelty. In the court’s opinion, the evidence demonstrated by the appellant beyond doubt proved that the respondent suffered from a mental condition and that the appellant was subjected to cruelty at the respondent’s hands. 

The learned single Judge of the High Court had also failed to recognise that, in lack of any evidence presented by the respondent, the appellant’s evidence had to be relied on and that the decree for divorce was bound to be given in favour of the appellant. The appellant had also provided specific instances of cruelty, indicating she had reasonable reasons for her fear that residing with the respondent would be hurtful or dangerous for her.

With regard to legal opinions on the aspects of cruelty, the Court stated that mental cruelty can be more devastating than physical injury, and can become a cause for substantial concern in the wounded person. Mental cruelty has to be assessed by considering all the case facts and the nature of the marriage relationship. For an act to be termed cruelty, there must be deliberate treatment that causes bodily or mental pain, or the threat of such suffering that makes cohabitation hazardous or hurtful under the circumstances. The term ‘cruelty’ hasn’t been defined in the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and 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 that is adversely affecting the other spouse. The conduct can be mental, physical, deliberate or accidental. In circumstances where the behaviour is prohibited, its impact on the other spouse does not need to be considered. A simple demonstration or acknowledgement of the action will be sufficient grounds to show cruelty. To further prove this point, the Court cited several cases, as stated above.

The Court has also kept several human aspects in mind before coming to a decision. This includes the fact that the appellant was only 24 years old when she was married and the marriage lasted for a maximum four to five years, after which she was ousted from her marital home. The marriage was never consummated because the respondent could not fulfil his matrimonial obligations. 

The parties have stopped living together since 1993 and have had no contact for about 13 years. Both parties have reached a point of no return, any form of mutual settlement between them is not possible. The parties cannot simply forget their past issues and move forward; thus, any form of reconciliation is also not possible

The parties began the legal battle in 1994. The prolonged separation and present situation were a clear indication that the appellant and respondent can never live together as husband and wife and that continuing this marriage would be injurious to the appellant’s health. Another factor to be kept in mind is that the appellant has subsequently finished her PhD, but the respondent, as per the appellant, is unemployed. Furthermore, the respondent has shown disinterest in the legal proceedings by leaving his deposition unfinished and since hasn’t appeared before any court till date.

Given these factors, the court came to the conclusion that the marriage is irretrievably broken, thus necessitating a divorce between the parties in order to preserve the appellant’s well-being. 

Analysis of the case 

This case is a landmark in order to realise the fact that cruelty shall not necessarily be in the same form for everyone, while for some the instances shall be in the form of physical and  for others in the form of mental. The Supreme Court has reinforced the idea that mental cruelty can be as important as physical cruelty and can even be considered an essential ground for divorce.

The case further reiterates that It’s important to consider each case’s distinct facts and  circumstances when assessing the alleged claims of cruelty concerning matrimonial disputes. Cruelty differs for every individual and is based upon a lot of factors. These include financial background, cultural background, educational standard, etc. What may constitute cruelty might be termed normal behaviour for another individual. The case emphasises the need to consider the specific facts and circumstances in every case rather than taking a one-size-fits-all strategy.

In this case, the parties, Vinita Saxena (appellant) and Pankaj Pandit (respondent), were married in a Hindu ceremony on February 7, 1993. The marriage lasted for five months and was never consummated because of the respondent’s incapacity to carry out any marital duties. The appellant claimed that the respondent’s mother had subjected her to severe mental and physical abuse because of the respondent’s undisclosed mental illness, paranoid schizophrenia, which was identified and was being treated since before the marriage. The appellant discovered this after marriage, after seeing the ongoing medical treatment as well as the doctor’s prescription. On attempting to discuss her issues, she was brutally beaten by the respondent at the behest of his mother and later consumed “Baygon Spray” in an attempt to commit suicide. 

Even after admitting the respondent to the hospital, the instances of physical abuse by the respondent, backed by his mother, continued and finally, it resulted in the appellant’s forceful expulsion from the marriage household on July 9, 1993. 

Finally, Vinita Saxena filed for divorce under Sections 13(1)(ia) and 13(1)(iii) of the Hindu Marriage Act, asserting mental and physical cruelty as well as the respondent’s mental illness. The Trial court had initially requested a medical examination of the defendant, but this decision was set aside by the High Court. Despite the appellant’s uncontested evidence, including the testimonies of several medical professionals as witnesses, as well as the respondent’s insufficient testimony, the Trial court decided to deny the divorce petition and dismissed her appeal. This decision was also upheld by the High Court. Dissatisfied with the decisions, the appellant filed an appeal with the Supreme Court via a special leave petition.

The Supreme Court allowed this appeal and a decree of divorce was given in favour of the appellant. The decision of the Trial Court affirmed by the High Court was set aside.

Judicial interpretation of cruelty in recent years

The term “cruelty” does not have a definite definition. The definition was open to interpretation as per the facts and circumstances of a particular case. If we look back over the years, each and every case has noted a distinct and important aspect of cruelty. Some of the important cases have been listed below:

Definition of cruelty is evolving

In the case of Shobha Rani vs. Madhukar Reddi (1988), the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the test for determining cruelty is whether the conduct of the respondent is of such a nature that the petitioner cannot reasonably be expected to live with the respondent.. The Court noted that the concept of cruelty is dynamic and cannot be defined with precision, acknowledging that its understanding evolves over time based on changing social norms and individual circumstances.

Cruelty can be both mental and physical

In the case of Samar Ghosh vs Jaya Ghosh (2007), the Supreme Court highlighted that cruelty in marriage can be both physical and psychological. Physical cruelty is judged according to the facts and gravity of the circumstance. For mental cruelty, the inquiry focuses first on the nature of the cruel behaviour and then on how it affects the spouse’s mental health. The main question is whether the treatment raised a reasonable concern that staying with the other spouse would be hurtful or dangerous. 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.

Irretrievable break down of marriage will be considered as cruelty

In the case of Shri Rakesh Raman vs Smt. Kavita (2013), the Supreme Court found that a marriage that has become progressively hostile and clashing is cruel to both parties. Continuing such a marriage solely for appearances causes unfairness to both parties. When a marriage is irretrievably broken, it is cruel to both partners, since one suffers from the other. As a result, the court decided that an irretrievably broken marriage is a valid reason for dissolution under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, which includes cruelty as a basis for divorce.

Conclusion 

This is an important case with regards to understanding the intricacies of mental cruelty and mental disease as grounds for divorce under Indian law. The case highlights the need of courts to properly examine the specific facts and circumstances of each case, rather than relying solely on precedents or personal beliefs. The changes in society necessitate a change in understanding these terms as well as  what all can come within its ambit.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

What is cruelty as per the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955?

Cruelty is defined as any marital act by one spouse that causes bodily, emotional, or economic agony on the other spouse. Cruelty is a subjective term and can evolve in accordance with time, location, or person, as well as the facts and circumstances of the particular case. So what we consider cruelty today might not be considered cruelty in the past, and what we do not consider now may become cruelty in the future. As a result, the Hindu Marriage Act of 1955, purposely did not provide a definition to the term ‘cruelty’, leaving it within the hands of the Court to decide.

What forms of cruelty exist?

There are two types of cruelty. In the first form, when one spouse commits an act of violence that injures the other spouse’s body, arms, and legs, or well-being, this is deemed physical cruelty. The second form of abuse isn’t defined anywhere. It is left to the courts’ discretion, which is based on the facts and circumstances of each case, i.e., the social values, community, culture, status, thinking process, and surroundings of the person involved. Mental cruelty can take various forms, such as constant humiliation, verbal abuse, harassment, neglect, threats, or persistent indifference towards the well- being of the other spouse.

References

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here