Source: Karnataka High Court

Why in News?

A wife calling her husband dark-skinned amounts to cruelty, ruled the Karnataka High Court.

Background

• Present Matter pertains to a plea by the husband contesting the decision of a family court in Bengaluru that dismissed his plea for the dissolution of his marriage under Section 13(i)(a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
• The divorce was filed by the husband in 2012 on the ground that he was consistently demeaned by his wife for his skin color.
• It was further alleged by the husband that in 2011, his wife lodged a "false" complaint against him and his family members, on cruelty under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860(IPC).
• The wife rebutted the allegations on the ground that he was in an extramarital affair and that she was subjected to physical abuse by him.
• The Court found the allegations levelled by wife as reckless, and baseless as no acceptable evidence was found on record and remarked that the family court failed to take into account the impact of such groundless and careless accusations.
• The Family Court had dismissed the petition of the husband on the ground that the husband has not made out a case for dissolution of marriage on the ground of cruelty.

Court’s Observations

• A bench of Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice Anant Ramanath Hegde while allowing the husband's plea for divorce held that wife's decision to distance herself from the company of her husband and to level false allegations against him of having illicit relationships to cover up things also amounts to cruelty.

Cruelty

• Cruelty in matrimonial relations - It means a matrimonial act that causes pain and distress of any kind such as physical, mental, or economical to others.
• What constitutes cruelty cannot be determined by a strait jacket formula; rather it depends on time, place, person, facts and circumstances of the case.

Position under IPC

• Criminal Law rescues a women subjected to cruelty under Section 498A of IPC.
  • Section 498A - Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty. —
• Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine.

Explanation —For the purposes of this section, “cruelty” means—

(a) any wilful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman; or

(b) harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand.

Position Under Hindu Law

• By the 1976 Amendment to HMA, cruelty was made a ground for divorce under Section 13(1)(ia).
  • Section 13 – Divorce — (1) Any marriage solemnized, whether before or after the commencement of this Act, may, on a petition presented by either the husband or the wife, be dissolved by a decree of divorce on the ground that the other party—
    • (ia) has, after the solemnization of the marriage, treated the petitioner with cruelty; or
• Prior to 1976 cruelty was merely a ground for claiming judicial separation under Section 10 of the Act.
  • Section 10 - Judicial separation.—1 (1) Either party to a marriage, whether solemnized before or after the commencement of this Act, may present a petition praying for a decree for judicial separation on any of the grounds specified in sub-section (1) of section 13, and in the case of a wife also on any of the grounds specified in sub-section (2) thereof, as grounds on which a petition for divorce might have been presented.
  • (2) Where a decree for judicial separation has been passed, it shall no longer be obligatory for the petitioner to cohabit with the respondent, but the court may, on the application by petition of either party and on being satisfied of the truth of the statements made in such petition, rescind the decree if it considers it just and reasonable to do so.

Case Laws on Cruelty

• Dastane v. Dastane (1975)
  • The matter was decided prior to the legislative addition of clause of cruelty under HMA.
    • The Apex Court made following observations:
    • Any conduct of the respondent which would render harmful or injurious for the petitioner to live with the respondent or is of such a nature so as to create a reasonable apprehension to that effect would amount to cruelty.
    • 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.
    • The impact or the injurious physical effect on the other spouse need not be enquired into or considered. In such cases, the cruelty will be established if the conduct itself is proved or admitted.
    • In matrimonial duties and responsibilities in particular, we find a sea of change. They are of varying degrees from house to house or person to person.
    • When a spouse makes a complaint about the treatment of cruelty by the partner in life or relations, the court should not search for standard in life.
• Naveen Kohli V. Neelu Kohli (2004)
  • Supreme Court in this case held that:
    • The word "cruelty" is used in Section 13(1)(ia) of the Act in the context of human conduct or behavior in relation to or in respect of matrimonial duties or obligations.
    • Physical violence is not essential to constitute cruelty, a consistent course of conduct inflicting immeasurable mental agony and torture may constitute cruelty as well.
    • Mental cruelty may consist of verbal abuses and insults by using filthy and abusive language leading to constant disturbance of mental peace of the other party.