In essence, whether the conduct inflicted by one party on the other clears the threshold of cruelty under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Act is wholly fact-dependent. In fact, there is no threshold test at all. The concept of cruelty is social milieu-dependent where the upbringing, level of education, sensitivity, financial position, social status, religious beliefs and cultural backgrounds of the parties would set the standard of whether the conduct complained of would be unmitigated cruel behaviour. The degree of tolerance to the conduct complained of would also depend on the outlook, experience and exposure of the complainant as well as the perpetrator. Any act of damage to reputation, social standing or work prospects by one spouse to the other would fall within the term “cruelty”. It may not be too far-fetched to say-hesitantly-that depriving a spouse from being on Facebook and Instagram may also amount to cruelty!
{Para 11}
12. The absence of a specific definition of ‘cruelty’ encourages a revisit of the requirement to prove cruel treatment as a ground for divorce under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Act. The concept of marital duties and obligations has changed at every level with changes in social structures. Family set-ups have been transformed with financial independence and greater equality in relationships. A marriage is more of a voluntary bond these days and less of a social compulsion. The law must move with the times.
TELANGANA HIGH COURT
CORAM: SMT. JUSTICE MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA AND
SMT JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI
C.M.A. No.68 OF 2022
JUDGMENT: (Per Hon’ble. Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya)
Dated:21.06.2024
