What is not Cruelty?

Cruelty is not defined by petty arguments, simple irritations, minor quarrels or issues, but by grave and severe conduct that causes lasting mental pain or injury. While any behaviour depends on the specific circumstances, courts have consistently held that everyday quarrels are not cruelty, as seen in the landmark case of Dastane v. Dastane, which emphasized the foundation of marriage as tolerance and adjustment, not hypersensitivity. Examples of conduct considered not cruelty include ordinary marital disagreements or minor quarrels.  

Examples of conduct considered not cruelty:

• Minor disputes and quarrels: Everyday disagreements are an inherent part of married life and are not considered cruelty unless they escalate to a severe and continuous pattern of abuse. 

  
  

• Petty behaviour: Trivial or minor annoyances, or "wear and tear" of married life, do not amount to cruelty. 

  
  

• Difference of Opinion: A simple difference of opinion, without a pattern of ill-treatment, is not sufficient to constitute cruelty. 

  
  

• Trivial matters are excluded: Annoyance or irritation alone does not meet the threshold for cruelty. 

  Important judgments and principles

• Dastane v. Dastane: 

  
  

This case established that while minor quarrels are normal, a conduct becomes cruelty if it is "grave and weighty" and causes lasting mental agony and makes it impossible to live with the other person. 

One of the earlier landmark judgements, Dastane v. Dastane, laid down the fundamental principle that the foundation of a sound marital relationship is tolerance, adjustment, and mutual respect. The Supreme Court noted that while minor quarrels and trivial disputes are inevitable in any marriage, exaggerating these issues to the point of causing lasting mental agony is what constitutes cruelty.

This case remains significant in that it cautions against a hyper-sensitive approach that magnifies ordinary marital differences into grounds for divorce, while still safeguarding the right of an individual to be free from substantial mental cruelty.

• Cruelty must be serious: The Supreme Court has consistently ruled that cruelty is not the same as normal marital friction. It must be conduct that is so grave and weighty that the aggrieved spouse cannot reasonably be expected to live with the other. 

• Not all legal recourse is cruelty: Simply filing a complaint or a case, such as one under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, does not automatically constitute cruelty. However, if the spouse is acquitted of false accusations after trial, it can be considered evidence of cruelty against the accuser. 

  
  

• Context matters: Cruelty is always examined within the context of the parties' social status, education, background, and temperament. A conduct that is cruel in one situation may not be so in another. 

  
  

• Focus on the impact: The court will consider the effect of the conduct on the spouse's mental welfare. The treatment must be of a nature that a reasonable person would not tolerate and would cause an apprehension of harm to their mental well-being. 

• Manoj Yadav v. Pushpa @ Kiran Yadav: 

This case demonstrated that unsubstantiated allegations and general statements without specific details of cruelty or harassment are not enough to prove cruelty, especially when seeking action against relatives who are not directly involved in the alleged acts. 

• K. Srinivas Rao vs. D. A. Deepa (2013) 5 SCC 226

In this case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the petitioner must show a consistent pattern of behaviour by the respondent to prove cruelty. It noted that occasional outbursts of anger or quarrels do not necessarily amount to cruelty.