Saurabh Malik
Chandigarh, December 23
Putting to rest the legal debate on the definition of cruelty in matrimonial disputes, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has ruled it is reprehensive conduct or departure from the normal standard of conjugal kindness, causing injury to the health, or an apprehension of it, to the other partner.
Puts to rest legal debate
Cruelty is reprehensive conduct or departure from the normal standard of conjugal kindness, causing injury to the health, or an apprehension of it, to the other partner. — Justice Ritu Bahri and Justice Deepak Gupta
The assertion by the Bench of Justice Ritu Bahri and Justice Deepak Gupta is significant as “cruelty” has not been defined anywhere in the Hindu Marriage Act. Taking up a petition by a husband through counsels RS Bajaj and Sidakjit Singh Bajaj, the Bench asserted heavy burden to prove cruelty rested upon the spouse pleading it.
The Bench asserted a straitjacket formula could not be laid and cruelty had to be assessed from case to case. It was required to be gathered and assessed from several instances/circumstances pleaded and proven on record by both the parties. The sum total of act and conduct of the parties towards each other was required to be gathered from the record to assess the allegations. The Bench further asserted cruelty was not required to be physical. It could be mental as well. It was the “course of conduct” of one partner adversely affecting the other. Mental pain, agony and suffering, making it impossible for the parties to live with each other, came within the broad parameters of cruelty.
Making it clear that cruelty was required to be distinguished from ordinary wear and tear of family life, the Bench observed it postulated treatment with such cruelty that it caused a reasonable apprehension in a partner’s mind that it would be harmful or injurious for him or her to live with the other. It could not be decided on the basis of a partner’s sensitivity and was required to be judged on the basis of “course of conduct” which would in general be dangerous for a spouse to live with other. Referring to the facts of the case in hand, the Bench added a partner having an incurable mental ailment, leading to irresponsible and violent behaviour, certainly made the life of the victim spouse a living hell. It made it impossible for the partner to live with the other with safety to his life and mental peace.
Allowing the divorce plea, the Bench added: “It stands proved that the relations between the parties had deteriorated to such an extent that it would be impossible for them to live togetherhellip; Further, long separation of seven years between the parties, during which they have been litigating, would show that the marriage has become a deadwood and beyond repairs on account of bitterness. The marriage cannot be revived by court verdict.”
