Behaviour which when considered in the context of the hearing of a petition for divorce indicates that the respondent has behaved in such a way that the petitioner cannot reasonably be expected to live with the respondent, i.e., that the marriage has broken down irretrievably. Cruelty has no artificial meaning in relation to proceedings for divorce, but it must be constituted by ‘grave and weighty matters’.
There is no precise wording of cruelty in a family law book.
Cruelty is defined under section 13 (1)(1a) the legal concept of cruelty has changed from time to time and from society to society through the changing social and economic conditions at the beginning of English law the purpose was considered an essential element of cruelty. In modern law no longer does modern law take the view that the purpose is to record protection for their innocent group to scold as scolding and even accompanied by meekness have been held to be included cruelty, and abroad human nature is essentially the same everywhere foreign decisions. Quality can be of necessity for us but it should also not be forgotten that in India a very large number of couples live in close-knit families and living together in Family has its own challenges and its own problems that may not arise elsewhere.
In case Russell v. Russell, “conduct of such a character as to have caused danger to life, Limb or health, bodily or mental or as to give rise to a reasonable apprehension of such danger.”
1976 Amendment, Cruelty became the basis for divorce. The words, included, “do not cause reasonable concern or fear that something bad will happen to the applicant’s mind that it will be harmful or harmful to the applicant to live with another person”. Cruelty perhaps heartbreaking or faint may be physical or mental may be verbal or peaceful May 20 as the meaning defines meaning can only be after considering all the facts and circumstances and cannot be determined by a firm fixed formula means lack of respect and understanding can be violence a certain attitude or even animal peace. A change in the definition of cruelty would mean that an act or omission or aggressive conduct that is the cause of divorce or legal separation even though it may result in imprisonment of any kind in the applicant’s mind is decided under the old system.
Under English law eight marriages resulting in an act of 1973 cruelty is one of the indications of marital breakdown and the operation of clauses is like giving cruelty a much more expansive meaning.
Cruelty should not always be the same as causing harm to health or well-being but injury or damage to health resulting from appropriate pain and mental anguish will also equate cruelty.
The plaintiff cannot be said to be cruel. Cruelty Also depends on social strata to which parties belong.
Intention to Be Cruel is not material At one time in English law intention to Be Cruel was an essential ingredient of cruelty a change of attitude to place an intention to enjoy a no longer agreement and essential element of cruelty in 1952 House Of Lords said that an actual intention of injury was not an essential element and that unintentional acts May amount to cruelty.
Under Hindu law also intention or motive is not an essential element of cruelty. In cruelty mens rea is not important. Mental cruelty also need not be International.
DIVORCE UNDER THE HINDU LAW
The city is said to be a cursed place where women are not respected and the family is respectful and respect for women is a place of happiness and prosperity. There are many misconceptions about the position of women in ancient times. Women were not always present, considered younger than men. According to Rig-Veda, women were equal to men in terms of “access and the power of the highest knowledge, even the knowledge of the Absolute. ”In a marriage union, the wife was given the same respect and authority as her husband in matters of religious rights and was also free to participate in religious ceremonies with her husband. Rig-Veda therefore provided a very high society status for eligible women in those days. It was Manu who gave women a dangerous position in society. According to Manu Smriti the wife was a wife who is to be a slave to an adulterous and wicked husband. She would not marry after the death of her husband though the couple may remarry in the event of the death of the first one. According to Manu Smriti, “her husband had the right to beat his wife when she committed a crime.”
Any action of the husband such as infidelity, cruelty, drunkenness etc. was to be ignored and expected to listen and be honest. The degradation of women led to their lack of education. Marriage at a young age too then the responsibility of managing the household chores made him less self-reliant and led him away from public works. In addition the acceptance of several social ills such as Sati, dowry, child marriage and forbidding the marriage of widows made it difficult for women to live according to their wishes. The result of all of this was the decline of women’s dignity in society.
According to Hindu mythology, marriage is a sacred ceremony. Because marriage is more sacramental than ever according to the treaty, the concept of divorce was unknown to the Hindu community before. Various ancient thinkers such as Atri, who considered they to be “immature,” were considered “unsuitable for divorced or divorced.” However, there is also sufficient evidence that although divorce was not so prominent in the Hindu community, was present among them. According to Manu Smriti, a man can leave wife if she is not pregnant within eight years, or if the child dies within ten years, or if the woman gives birth to a girl child only in the eleven years they have been married. Not only that, the text says a man should leave his wife if she has a sharp tongue, or if she is drunk, or if she is having an affair, indulging in alcohol Immorality. “A wife who is persistent does things that are displeasing to her husband; he suffers from diseases like leprosy, mistreats the domestic servants, and destroys him. The husband, who has worked hard, must be divorced without delay. ” Violence as a result of divorce was not uncommon before laws were enacted in 1955-1956. It was during the revival of the 19th and 20th centuries that when finally, the movement began to bring about a good change in the status of women. Reform movement and organizations founded by Raja Ram Mohan Roy once Ishwar Chandra Vidyasagar created pressure that led to “a change in attitudes toward marriage and Divorce”. One such example was the passing of the Civil Marriage Act, 1872 which resulted in enforcement of one woman. Before Independence, provinces such as Baroda and Kolkata introduced consensus laws on the dissolution of the marriage but it was part of a social law passed in 1955 that officially recognized cruelty as a valid reason for legal separation.
However, the Hindu Code faced a lot of criticism for trying to destroy it on which the Hindu community was based. According to many orthodox traditionalists the launch of the clause’s
Divorce can damage the very foundation of the Hindu community by seriously damaging the marriage arrangement. It was said by another Lakshmi Kanta Moitra that the introduction of a system that allows cruelty as a basis of the divorce it had provided was ‘holy and without blemish.’ But if we remember the modern social reality, it was not it is possible to cling to the
Preconceived notion of infidelity and lasting unity between man and woman. It was natural for the founders of the Law, in spite of all religious opposition, to provide for divorce. Following.
English law, the Act provides for marital infidelity, divorce and legal separation”
CLASSIFICATION OF CRUELTY IN THE MODEL OF CRUELTY IS DEFINED IN TWO HEADS
Physical cruelty, and
Acts of physical violence by one response to another resulting in injury to body Limb or health or causing reasonable apprehension of the same have been traditionally considered as cruelty this is the original meaning of cruelty. Depending upon the susceptibility and sensibility of the party concerned, what acts of physical violence will amount to cruelty will differ in each case. In Kaushalya v. wisakhiram,The 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. In case Sayal v.Sarla and Saptmi v. Jagdish, are cases of physical cruelty in the latter case, the husband constantly abused and insulted the wife and ultimately on one day in her father’s house he pushed her against the wall causing her bruises.
In Bhagat v. Bhagat, the Supreme Court defined Mental cruelty as that conduct which impose 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 wrong 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.
Read concluding part on thedailyguardian.com