CLASSIFICATION OF CRUELTY.—

In the modern law, cruelty is classified under the following two heads:

a. Physical cruelty, and

b. Mental cruelty.

PHYSICAL CRUELTY.—

Acts of physical violence by one spouse to another resulting in injury to body, limb or health, or causing reasonable apprehension of the same have been traditionally considered as cruelty. In fact, this is the original meaning of cruelty.

What acts of physical violence will amount to cruelty will differ from case to case, depending upon the susceptibility and sensibility of the party concerned.

KAUSHALYA V. WISAKHIRAMTHE

In above case, husband ill-treated the wife, beat her, so much so that she had to go to the police to lodge a report.

Dua, J. rightly said that even though injuries on the person were considered to be not very serious as to call for their medical treatment, yet she had been actually ill-treated and beaten-up; this must be held to amount to cruelty.

JYOTISH CHANDRA V. MEERA,

It was a case of physical cruelty coupled with mental cruelty. It is not necessary to prove actual danger to life; apprehension of the same is enough. Even one or two acts of physical violence are sufficient to constitute cruelty, but not an isolated instance.

INJURY TO PRIVATE PARTS.—

Husband indulging in unnatural carnal relationship is held to be cruelty.

MENTAL CRUELTY.—

In the modern matrimonial law, mental cruelty is a very important aspect of legal cruelty.

In Bhagat v. Bhagat, the Supreme Court defined mental cruelty 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.

To judge mental cruelty, court has to go by "intensity, gravity and stigmatic impact" of cruel treatment, even if such cruel treatment is meted out once. While arriving at such a conclusion regard must be had to the social status, educational level of the parties, the society they move in, the possibility of the parties living together and all other relevant facts and circumstances which it is neither possible nor desirable to set out exhaustively.

What is cruelty in one case may not amount to cruelty in another case. It is a matter to be determined in each case having regard to the facts and circumstances of that case.

DASTANE V. DASTANE

Above is is a high watermark case on mental cruelty.

The wife took delight in causing misery to her husband, to his relatives, whom she abused profusely, day and night. She not merely abused and humiliated the husband and his father but also made false accusations against them.

She would hurl abuses like these on her husband: "I want to see the ruination of the whole Dastane dynasty," "Burn the books written by your father and smear the ashes on your forehead," "You are not a man but a monster in human body", "I would make you lose your job and get it published in the newspapers," and the like.

Once she tore her mangal sutra. She would lock out the husband when he was due to return from the office. She used to thrash her child mercilessly even when he had high fever. She would rub chilly powder on the tongue of the child.

During the night, she would switch on the light focussed on husband and sit by his side and nag him.

SREEPADACHANDA V. VASANTHA,

The court found that the wife quarrelled with and hurled vilest abuses at her husband over most trivial matters, on account of which the husband had to spend many sleepless nights and suffered great mental agony.

She not merely abused him at home, but she did so in public and subjected him to great humiliation and shame before the public. He became a laughingstock in the locality.

On one occasion, she caught hold of him by his collar in a bus and abused him.

On another occasion, she made him cook food for her and when he served the food to her, in a rage she threw the plates at him saying that what rubbish he had cooked and wanted an apology from him.

Once when he was going to his office with his colleagues, she caught hold of him by the neck and abused and insulted him. She used to say that she wanted her husband to be killed in some accident so that she could have his insurance money and provident fund.

All this obviously caused great agony and mental torture to the husband.

Wilful, unjustifiable interference by one spouse in the sphere of life of another is one species of cruelty in the same manner as rough or domineering conduct or unnatural sexual practices or disgusting accusations of unchastity or adultery are.

 Similarly, wife’s refusal to prepare tea for the friends of the husband who have called on them or lodging false criminal complaint against the husband is an act of cruelty.

Denial of medical treatment to the spouse, particularly on the very first day of her arrival in the matrimonial home and turning her out of the matrimonial home on the very first day are obviously acts of cruelty.

Continuous ill-treatment, cessation of marital intercourse, studied neglect and indifference, total lack of affection and regard on the part of a spouse are also acts of cruelty.

However, outburst of temper without rancour, non-payment of interim maintenance, or desertion per se does not amount to cruelty.

WIFE QUARRELLING WITH MOTHER-IN-LAW.—

Mere domestic quarrels on account of the presence of the mother-in-law in the family would not constitute mental cruelty.

 Mere misbehaviour with parents of husband and other relations does not amount to cruelty.

DEMAND OF DOWRY.—-

The demand of dowry from the wife or her parents and relations amounts to cruelty. But this should be distinguished from the Section 498-A, Indian Penal Code whereunder it is a criminal offence.

PERSISTENT REFUSAL TO HAVE MARITAL INTERCOURSE.—

Persistent refusal to have marital intercourse amounts to cruelty.

In Shakuntala v. Om Prakash, Leila Seth, J. observed : "A normal and healthy sexual relationship is one of the basic ingredients of a happy and harmonious marriage.

If this is not possible due to ill-health on the part of one of the spouses, it may or may not amount to cruelty depending upon the circumstances of the case.

But wilful denial of sexual relationship by a spouse when the other spouse is anxious for it, would amount to mental cruelty, especially when the parties are young and newly married." This is a consistent view taken by the courts.