KERALA HIGH COURT
Devan Ramachandran and
C. Pratheep Kumar, JJ.
Litty Mary John – Appellant
versus
Manoj. K. Varghese – Respondent
Mat. Appeal No.1131 of 2017
Decided on 11.7.2024
(A) Cruelty – Manifestations – Cruelty encompasses a range of behaviour and actions that inflict physical or emotional harm, pain, or suffering on others – It can manifest in various forms, such as verbal abuse, physical violence, neglect, psychological manipulation, and systemic oppression – Recognizing and addressing cruelty in its many forms is crucial for fostering a more empathetic and just society – Concept of cruelty is inherently subjective – What one person considers cruel, may not be perceived same way by another – This subjectivity arises from individual differences in values, experiences, and sensitivity. (Paras 6, 7 and 12)
(B) Special Marriage Act, 1954 – Section 27 – Divorce – Matrimonial cruelty – Alleged remarriage by respondent husband – Family Judge has found incidents narrated by appellant to be rather trivial and as part of stress and strain of a normal marital life – Victims, living under relentless pressure, must be given necessary space to breathe, relieving them of heavy weight they carry – Parties never lived together after year 2010 – Appellant is entitled to succeed since she cannot be forced to remain in a marriage against her will and without her volition – Marriage between parties declared to be dissolved. (Paras 34, 45, 48, 49 and 50)
Result: Appeal allowed.
JUDGMENT
Devan Ramachandran, J.—The concept of ‘cruelty’ has scarcely been defined with exactitude in any matrimonial or divorce statutes; and perhaps, it can never be.
2. As a normal standard, any violent or demoralizing act, constituting abuse, either physically or mentally, on either of the spouses in a matrimonial scenario, would generally be construed to be cruelty.
3. The U.N. Special Report of the year 1955 defines ‘cruelty’ as “any act of gender based violence that results in, or is likely to result in, physical, sexual or psychological harm or suffering to women, including threats of such acts, coercion or arbitrary deprivation of liberty, whether occurring in public or in private life.”
4. Lord Davey of the House of Lords, spoke thus for a Bench, with a narrow majority of five to four thus:
“The general idea, which, I think underlies all those decisions, is that, while declining to lay down any hard and fast definition of legal cruelty, the Courts acted on the principle of giving protection to the complaining spouse against the actual or apprehended violence, physical ill-treatment, or injury to health”.
5. There are several elements that Courts will have to consider: danger to health, physical injury, threats, coercion, pressure and so forth.
6. Apodictically, cruelty encompasses a range of behaviour and actions that inflict physical or emotional harm, pain, or suffering on others. It can manifest in various forms, such as verbal abuse, physical violence, neglect, psychological manipulation, and systemic oppression. In relationships, cruelty may appear as controlling behaviors, intimidation, or relentless criticism that erode a person’s dignity and freedom.
7. Ultimately, recognizing and addressing cruelty in its many forms is crucial for fostering a more empathetic and just society.
8. While defining “cruelty” with mere words is challenging, explanations and illustrations can help convey what it means to an individual.
9. The 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”.
10. The Black’s Law Dictionary [8th Edition, 2004] defines “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”.
11. A single, overarching definition of “cruelty” is impractical and ineffective, as it can manifest in various forms and shapes - it may be perceived differently in different situations. What constitutes cruelty often differs from person to person, situation to situation, as it is subjective and depends on the perception of the individual experiencing it.
12. The concept of cruelty indubitably is inherently subjective –it being inevitable – since what one person considers cruel, may not be perceived the same way by another. This subjectivity arises from individual differences in values, experiences, and sensitivity. For instance, an action that causes emotional distress to one person, might be perceived as trivial or inconsequential by someone else. These varying perceptions make it difficult to establish a universal definition of “cruelty”, as it relies heavily on the individual’s personal interpretation and emotional response to the behaviour in question.
13. Though “Matrimonial cruelty” unfortunately has sometimes been perceived “part and parcel” of marriage, it has – more than often –evaded precise connotation. A spouse who has endured it for years - whether due to being silenced by the other spouse or their family, gaslighted, or unaware that it constitutes “cruelty” - may lack the courage to speak out about the horrific experiences she/he has faced within the four walls of their shared household. When they finally do muster the courage, the complaining spouse frequently finds themselves under intense scrutiny, facing questions about
(1) A dead marriage must be given a decent quietus.(2) Concept of cruelty is inherently subjective – What one person considers cruel, may not be perceived same way by another.
The definition of cruelty in matrimonial law is complex and varies contextually, requiring sensitive judicial consideration of social dynamics and behaviors.
Cruelty for divorce includes both physical and mental acts that cause reasonable apprehension of harm in matrimonial relationships.
Point of Law : Matrimonial Dispute - Cruelty - None of instances of cruelty, pleaded in plaint, would amount to commission of cruelty within meaning of Section 13 of Act, 1955 nor does it satisfy the....
Cruelty in matrimonial law is subjective and must be assessed based on its impact on the aggrieved spouse, rather than rigid standards or expectations.
Cruelty in matrimonial law encompasses both physical and mental aspects, with the latter requiring a cumulative assessment of conduct that causes reasonable apprehension of harm to the aggrieved spou....
Mental cruelty can justify divorce when one spouse's conduct causes reasonable apprehension of harm to the other, as established in this case.
Divorce – Cruelty may be mental or physical – It may be intentional or unintentional – It is a matter of inference to be drawn by considering nature of conduct and its effect on complaining spouse.
Cruelty in matrimonial law is assessed based on its impact on the aggrieved spouse, requiring a subjective evaluation of circumstances rather than a mere objective standard.
The judgment emphasizes the need to consider the cultural, ethical, and social aspects of the parties' lives in determining cruelty in matrimonial disputes, as well as the importance of ascertaining ....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.