© IE Online Media Services Pvt Ltd
Tags:
Journalism of Courage
Andhra Pradesh HC cruelty divorce: The Andhra Pradesh High Court has upheld an order allowing divorce of a couple on the grounds of cruelty alleged by the husband and said it includes both “physical and mental” injury.
A bench of Justices Battu Devanand and Hari Haranadha Sharma on November 25 noted that the word “cruelty” was required to be understood in different dimensions and it could be either “physical or mental”.
“In matrimonial law, it is very difficult to give a strict definition for ‘cruelty’. The causes which warrant separation generally must be grave and weighty, such as to show an absolute impossibility that the duties of married life can be discharged,” the court said.
The man had filed a plea on the ground of cruelty for divorce in a family court, which allowed it in 2008. The woman, however, challenged the family court verdict before the high court.
The bench in its order said, “What wounds the mental feeling is, in few cases, to be admitted as ‘cruelty’, even though it is not accompanied with ‘bodily injury.’ Mere temper, rudeness of language or a want of civil attention, if they do not threaten bodily harm, do not amount to legal cruelty. But they are ‘high moral offences’ in the field of marriage.”
The order further observed that if one has to take “only danger to life, limb or health as the cruelties” – usually considered as a “cruelty” – for enforcing penal law as grounds, in matrimonial litigation, it may not be sound and logical.
“The court is not to wait till hurt is actually done, but if apprehension is reasonable, it is sufficient,” the bench added.
The order noted “injury to the body is one branch, and injury to health is another branch. Injury to health would include mental health”.
Key observations
1. The ordinary wear and tear in the matrimonial life and general misconduct of either of the parties, sometimes exists on one side and sometimes on the other, or even both.
2. The parties will bear to some degree, either by prudent conciliation or by suffering in silence.
3. Every wilful act or omission or negligence indicated with some behaviour will amount to cruelty but what shall be such behaviour cannot be precisely defined with straightjacket formula.
4. That depends on the way of life of the parties and their social and economic conditions, including the customs and traditions.
5. Harassment of a woman with a view to coerce her or any person related to her to meet an unlawful demand for any property amounts to cruelty.
6. Physical violence is not absolutely essential to constitute cruelty.
7. A consistent course of conduct inflicting immeasurable mental agony and torture will amount to cruelty.
Background
The couple married in June, 2002 according to Hindu rites and rituals and had one child from the wedlock. Subsequent matrimonial discord resulted in the man filing for divorce on the ground of cruelty by the wife, following which the family court held that the “cruelty” of the husband is proved.
The husband argued in trial court that since the beginning, the wife insisted on living separately from his joint family situation and would go to her parental home without informing him.
He alleged that the woman was reluctant to come to his house and fought with on one pretext or the other.
The husband’s counsel argued that in 2004, he moved the civil judge to grant divorce on the basis of mutual consent. However, the couple agreed to live together and during the couple’s time of living together, the wife terminated her pregnancy, causing his client “mental agony”.
The wife’s counsel, on the other hand, informed the trial court that the allegations against her were false. The husband was alleged to be “sadistic” who ill-treated her, used “abusive and vulgar language and beat her indiscriminately”.
“The situation was unbearable. The petitioner used to scold respondent’s father and even necked out the respondent from his house. She was even put under lock in a room and was asked to sign on divorce papers. Having no other option, she signed the divorce papers in 2004,” the wife’s counsel argued.
The family court, however, granted divorce to the husband on the ground of cruelty.
While upholding the order of family court, the high court noted that the husband had shown that the attitude of the wife had exposed him to cruelty or harassment which was sufficient to seek relief of dissolution of marriage.
“Findings of the Family Court are found sound, legal and logical,” it said.
