Whether to filing on grounds of cruelty is possible?

It has become imperative to understand and comprehend the concept of cruelty.

The Shorter Oxford Dictionary defines 'cruelty' as 'the quality of being cruel; disposition of inflicting suffering; delight in or indifference to another's pain; mercilessness; hard-heartedness'.

The term "mental cruelty" has been defined in the Black's Law Dictionary [8th Edition, 2004] as under:

"Mental Cruelty - As a ground for divorce, one spouse's course of conduct (not involving actual violence) that creates such anguish that it endangers the life, physical health, or mental health of the other spouse."

The concept of cruelty has been summarized in Halsbury's Laws of England [Vol.13, 4th Edition Para 1269] as under:

"The general rule in all cases of cruelty is that the entire matrimonial relationship must be considered, and that rule is of special value when the cruelty consists not of violent acts but of injurious reproaches, complaints, accusations or taunts. In cases where no violence is averred, it is undesirable to consider judicial pronouncements with a view to creating certain categories of acts or conduct as having or lacking the nature or quality which renders them capable or incapable in all circumstances of amounting to cruelty; for it is the effect of the conduct rather than its nature which is of paramount importance in assessing a complaint of cruelty. Whether one spouse has been guilty of cruelty to the other is essentially a question of fact and previously decided cases have little, if any, value. The court should bear in mind the physical and mental condition of the parties as well as their social status, and should consider the impact of the personality and conduct of one spouse on the mind of the other, weighing all incidents and quarrels between the spouses from that point of view; further, the conduct alleged must be examined in the light of the complainant's capacity for endurance and the extent to which that capacity is known to the other spouse. Malevolent intention is not essential to cruelty but it is an important element where it exits."

In 24 American Jurisprudence 2d, the term "mental cruelty" has been defined as under:
"Mental Cruelty as a course of unprovoked conduct toward one's spouse which causes embarrassment, humiliation, and anguish so as to render the spouse's life miserable and unendurable. The plaintiff must show a course of conduct on the part of the defendant which so endangers the physical or mental health of the plaintiff as to render continued cohabitation unsafe or improper, although the plaintiff need not establish actual instances of physical abuse."

In the instant case, our main endeavour would be to define broad parameters of the concept of 'mental cruelty'. Thereafter, we would strive to determine whether the instances of mental cruelty enumerated in this case by the appellant would cumulatively be adequate to grant a decree of divorce on the ground of mental cruelty according to the settled legal position as crystallized by a number of cases of this Court and other Courts.

This Court has had an occasion to examine in detail the position of mental cruelty in N.G. Dastane v. S. Dastane reported in (1975) 2 SCC 326 at page 337, para 30 observed as under :-

"The enquiry therefore has to be whether the conduct charges as cruelty is of such a character as to cause in the mind of the petitioner a reasonable apprehension that it will be harmful or injurious for him to live with the respondent ."

In the case of Sirajmohmedkhan Janmohamadkhan v. Haizunnisa Yasinkhan & Anr. reported in (1981) 4 SCC 250, this Court stated that the concept of legal cruelty changes according to the changes and advancement of social concept and standards of living. With the advancement of our social conceptions, this feature has obtained legislative recognition, that a second marriage is a sufficient ground for separate residence and maintenance. Moreover, to establish legal cruelty, it is not necessary that physical violence should be used. Continuous ill-treatment, cessation of marital intercourse, studied neglect, indifference on the part of the husband, and an assertion on the part of the husband that the wife is unchaste are all factors which lead to mental or legal cruelty.

In the case of Shobha Rani v. Madhukar Reddi reported in (1988) 1 SCC 105, this Court had an occasion to examine the concept of cruelty. The word 'cruelty' has not been defined in the Hindu Marriage Act. It has been used in Section 13(1)(i)(a) of the Act in the context of human conduct or behaviour in relation to or in respect of matrimonial duties or obligations. It is a course of conduct of one which is adversely affecting the other. The cruelty may be mental or physical, intentional or unintentional. If it is physical, it is a question of fact and degree. If it is mental, the enquiry must begin as to the nature of the cruel treatment and then as to the impact of such treatment on the mind of the spouse. Whether it caused reasonable apprehension that it would be harmful or injurious to live with the other, ultimately, is a matter of inference to be drawn by taking into account the nature of the conduct and its effect on the complaining spouse. There may, however, be cases where the conduct complained of itself is bad enough and per se unlawful or illegal. Then the impact or the injurious 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. The absence of intention should not make any difference in the case, if by ordinary sense in human affairs, the act complained of could otherwise be regarded as cruelty. Intention is not a necessary element in cruelty. The relief to the party cannot be denied on the ground that there has been no deliberate or wilful ill-treatment.

In Rajani v. Subramonian AIR 1990 Ker. 1 the Court aptly observed that the concept of cruelty depends upon the type of life the parties are accustomed to or their economic and social conditions, their culture and human values to which they attach importance, judged by standard of modern civilization in the background of the cultural heritage and traditions of our society.

Again, this Court had an occasion to examine in great detail the concept of mental cruelty. In the case of V. Bhagat v. D. Bhagat (Mrs.) reported in (1994) 1 SCC 337, the Court observed, in para 16 at page 347, as under:

"16. Mental cruelty in Section 13(1)(i-a) can broadly be defined as that conduct which inflicts 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 wronged 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. While arriving at such conclusion, regard must be had to the social status, educational level of the parties, the society they move in, the possibility or otherwise of the parties ever living together in case they are already living apart and all other relevant facts and circumstances which it is neither possible nor desirable to set out exhaustively. What is cruelty in one case may not amount to cruelty in another case. It is a matter to be determined in each case having regard to the facts and circumstances of that case. If it is a case of accusations and allegations, regard must also be had to the context in which they were made."

This Court aptly observed in Chetan Dass v. Kamla Devi reported in (2001) 4 SCC 250, para 14 at pp.258-259, as under:

"Matrimonial matters are matters of delicate human and emotional relationship. It demands mutual trust, regard, respect, love and affection with sufficient play for reasonable adjustments with the spouse. The relationship has to conform to the social norms as well. The matrimonial conduct has now come to be governed by statute framed, keeping in view such norms and changed social order. It is sought to be controlled in the interest of the individuals as well as in broader perspective, for regulating matrimonial norms for making of a well-knit, healthy and not a disturbed and porous society. The institution of marriage occupies an important place and role to play in the society, in general. Therefore, it would not be appropriate to apply any submission of "irretrievably broken marriage" as a straitjacket formula for grant of relief of divorce. This aspect has to be considered in the background of the other facts and circumstances of the case."

In Savitri Pandey v. Prem Chandra Pandey reported in (2002) 2 SCC 73, the Court stated as under:
"Mental cruelty is the conduct of other spouse which causes mental suffering or fear to the matrimonial life of the other. "Cruelty", therefore, postulates a treatment of the petitioner with such cruelty as to cause a reasonable apprehension in his or her mind that it would be harmful or injurious for the petitioner to live with the other party. Cruelty, however, has to be distinguished from the ordinary wear and tear of family life. It cannot be decided on the basis of the sensitivity of the petitioner and has to be adjudged on the basis of the course of conduct which would, in general, be dangerous for a spouse to live with the other."

This Court in the case of Gananath Pattnaik v. State of Orissa reported in (2002) 2 SCC 619 observed as under:
"The concept of cruelty and its effect varies from individual to individual, also depending upon the social and economic status to which such person belongs. "Cruelty" for the purposes of constituting the offence under the aforesaid section need not be physical. Even mental torture or abnormal behaviour may amount to cruelty and harassment in a given case."

The mental cruelty has also been examined by this Court in Parveen Mehta v. Inderjit Mehta reported in (2002) 5 SCC 706 at pp.716-17 [para 21] which reads as under:

"Cruelty for the purpose of Section 13(1)(i-a) is to be taken as a behaviour by one spouse towards the other, which causes reasonable apprehension in the mind of the latter that it is not safe for him or her to continue the matrimonial relationship with the other. Mental cruelty is a state of mind and feeling with one of the spouses due to the behaviour or behavioural pattern by the other. Unlike the case of physical cruelty, mental cruelty is difficult to establish by direct evidence. It is necessarily a matter of inference to be drawn from the facts and circumstances of the case. A feeling of anguish, disappointment and frustration in one spouse caused by the conduct of the other can only be appreciated on assessing the attending facts and circumstances in which the two partners of matrimonial life have been living. The inference has to be drawn from the attending facts and circumstances taken cumulatively. In case of mental cruelty it will not be a correct approach to take an instance of misbehaviour in isolation and then pose the question whether such behaviour is sufficient by itself to cause mental cruelty. The approach should be to take the cumulative effect of the facts and circumstances emerging from the evidence on record and then draw a fair inference whether the petitioner in the divorce petition has been subjected to mental cruelty due to conduct of the other."

In this case the Court also stated that so many years have elapsed since the spouses parted company. In these circumstances it can be reasonably inferred that the marriage between the parties has broken down irretrievably.

In A. Jayachandra v. Aneel Kaur reported in (2005) 2 SCC 22, the Court observed as under:

"The expression "cruelty" has not been defined in the Act. Cruelty can be physical or mental. Cruelty which is a ground for dissolution of marriage may be defined as wilful and unjustifiable conduct of such character as to cause danger to life, limb or health, bodily or mental, or as to give rise to a reasonable apprehension of such a danger. The question of mental cruelty has to be considered in the light of the norms of marital ties of the particular society to which the parties belong, their social values, status, environment in which they live. Cruelty, as noted above, includes mental cruelty, which falls within the purview of a matrimonial wrong. Cruelty need not be physical. If from the conduct of the spouse, same is established and/or an inference can be legitimately drawn that the treatment of the spouse is such that it causes an apprehension in the mind of the other spouse, about his or her mental welfare then this conduct amounts to cruelty. In a delicate human relationship like matrimony, one has to see the probabilities of the case. The concept proof beyond the shadow of doubt, is to be applied to criminal trials and not to civil matters and certainly not to matters of such delicate personal relationship as those of husband and wife. Therefore, one has to see what are the probabilities in a case and legal cruelty has to be found out, not merely as a matter of fact, but as the effect on the mind of the complainant spouse because of the acts or omissions of the other. Cruelty may be physical or corporeal or may be mental. In physical cruelty, there can be tangible and direct evidence, but in the case of mental cruelty there may not at the same time be direct evidence. In cases where there is no direct evidence, Courts are required to probe into the mental process and mental effect of incidents that are brought out in evidence. It is in this view that one has to consider the evidence in matrimonial disputes.

To constitute cruelty, the conduct complained of should be "grave and weighty" so as to come to the conclusion that the petitioner spouse cannot be reasonably expected to live with the other spouse. It must be something more serious than "ordinary wear and tear of married life". The conduct taking into consideration the circumstances and background has to be examined to reach the conclusion whether the conduct complained of amounts to cruelty in the matrimonial law. Conduct has to be considered, as noted above, in the background of several factors such as social status of parties, their education, physical and mental conditions, customs and traditions. It is difficult to lay down a precise definition or to give exhaustive descripttion of the circumstances, which would constitute cruelty. It must be of the type as to satisfy the conscience of the Court that the relationship between the parties had deteriorated to such extent due to the conduct of the other spouse that it would be impossible for them to live together without mental agony, torture or distress, to entitle the complaining spouse to secure divorce. Physical violence is not absolutely essential to constitute cruelty and a consistent course of conduct inflicting immeasurable mental agony and torture may well constitute cruelty within the meaning of Section 10 of the Act. 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.

The Court dealing with the petition for divorce on the ground of cruelty has to bear in mind that the problems before it are those of human beings and the psychological changes in a spouse's conduct have to be borne in mind before disposing of the petition for divorce. However, insignificant or trifling, such conduct may cause pain in the mind of another. But before the conduct can be called cruelty, it must touch a certain pitch of severity. It is for the Court to weigh the gravity. It has to be seen whether the conduct was such that no reasonable person would tolerate it. It has to be considered whether the complainant should be called upon to endure as a part of normal human life. Every matrimonial conduct, which may cause annoyance to the other, may not amount to cruelty. Mere trivial irritations, quarrels between spouses, which happen in day-to-day married life, may also not amount to cruelty. Cruelty in matrimonial life may be of unfounded variety, which can be subtle or brutal. It may be words, gestures or by mere silence, violent or non-violent."

This Court in Vinita Saxena v. Pankaj Pandit reported in (2006) 3 SCC 778 aptly observed as under:

"As to what constitutes the required mental cruelty for the purposes of the said provision, will not depend upon the numerical count of such incidents or only on the continuous course of such conduct but really go by the intensity, gravity and stigmatic impact of it when meted out even once and the deleterious effect of it on the mental attitude, necessary for maintaining a conducive matrimonial home.

If the taunts, complaints and reproaches are of ordinary nature only, the court perhaps need consider the further question as to whether their continuance or persistence over a period of time render, what normally would, otherwise, not be so serious an act to be so injurious and painful as to make the spouse charged with them genuinely and reasonably conclude that the maintenance of matrimonial home is not possible any longer."

In Shobha Rani's case (supra) at pp.108-09, para 5, the Court observed as under:
"5. Each case may be different. We deal with the conduct of human beings who are no generally similar. Among the human beings there is no limit to the kind of conduct which may constitute cruelty. New type of cruelty may crop up in any case depending upon the human behaviour, capacity or incapability to tolerate the conduct complained of. Such is the wonderful (sic) realm of cruelty."

In this case, the Court cautioned the lawyers and judges not to import their own notions of life in dealing with matrimonial problems. The judges should not evaluate the case from their own standards. There may be a generation gap between the judges and the parties. It is always prudent if the judges keep aside their customs and manners in deciding matrimonial cases in particular.

In a recent decision of this Court in the case of Rishikesh Sharma v. Saroj Sharma reported in 2006 (12) Scale 282, this Court observed that the respondent wife was living separately from the year 1981 and the marriage has broken down irretrievably with no possibility of the parties living together again. The Court further observed that it will not be possible for the parties to live together and therefore there was no purpose in compelling both the parties to live together. Therefore the best course was to dissolve the marriage by passing a decree of divorce so that the parties who were litigating since 1981 and had lost valuable part of life could live peacefully in remaining part of their life. The Court further observed that her desire to live with her husband at that stage and at that distance of time was not genuine.

This Court observed that under such circumstances, the High Court was not justified in refusing to exercise its jurisdiction in favour of the appellant who sought divorce from the Court. "Mental cruelty" is a problem of human behaviour. This human problem unfortunately exists all over the world. Existence of similar problem and its adjudication by different courts of other countries would be of great relevance, therefore, we deem it appropriate to examine similar cases decided by the Courts of other jurisdictions. We must try to derive benefit of wisdom and light received from any quarter.

No uniform standard can ever be laid down for guidance, yet we deem it appropriate to enumerate some instances of human behaviour which may be relevant in dealing with the cases of 'mental cruelty'. The instances indicated in the succeeding paragraphs are only illustrative and not exhaustive.

(i)        On consideration of complete matrimonial life of the parties, acute mental pain, agony and suffering as would not make possible for the parties to live with each other could come within the broad parameters of mental cruelty.

(ii). On comprehensive appraisal of the entire matrimonial life of the parties, it becomes abundantly clear that situation is such that the wronged party cannot reasonably be asked to put up with such conduct and continue to live with other party.

(iii) Mere coldness or lack of affection cannot amount to cruelty, frequent rudeness of language, petulance of manner, indifference and neglect may reach such a degree that it makes the married life for the other spouse absolutely intolerable.
(iv) Mental cruelty is a state of mind. The feeling of deep anguish, disappointment, frustration in one spouse caused by the conduct of other for a long time may lead to mental cruelty.
(v) A sustained course of abusive and humiliating treatment calculated to torture, discommode or render miserable life of the spouse.
(vi) Sustained unjustifiable conduct and behaviour of one spouse actually affecting physical and mental health of the other spouse. The treatment complained of and the resultant danger or apprehension must be very grave, substantial and weighty.
(vii) Sustained reprehensible conduct, studied neglect, indifference or total departure from the normal standard of conjugal kindness causing injury to mental health or deriving sadistic pleasure can also amount to mental cruelty.
(viii) The conduct must be much more than jealousy, selfishness, possessiveness, which causes unhappiness and dissatisfaction and emotional upset may not be a ground for grant of divorce on the ground of mental cruelty.
(ix) Mere trivial irritations, quarrels, normal wear and tear of the married life which happens in day to day life would not be adequate for grant of divorce on the ground of mental cruelty.
(x) The married life should be reviewed as a whole and a few isolated instances over a
period of years will not amount to cruelty. The ill-conduct must be persistent for a fairly lengthy period, where the relationship has deteriorated to an extent that because of the acts and behaviour of a spouse, the wronged party finds it extremely difficult to live with the other party any longer, may amount to mental cruelty.
(xi) If a husband submits himself for an operation of sterilization without medical reasons and without the consent or knowledge of his wife and similarly if the wife undergoes vasectomy or abortion without medical reason or without the consent or knowledge of her husband, such an act of the spouse may lead to mental cruelty.
(xii) Unilateral decision of refusal to have intercourse for considerable period without there being any physical incapacity or valid reason may amount to mental cruelty.
(xiii) Unilateral decision of either husband or wife after marriage not to have child from the marriage may amount to cruelty.
(xiv) Where there has been a long period of continuous separation, it may fairly be concluded that the matrimonial bond is beyond repair. The marriage becomes a fiction though supported by a legal tie. By refusing to sever that tie, the law in such cases, does not serve the sanctity of marriage; on the contrary, it shows scant regard for the feelings and emotions of the parties. In such like situations, it may lead to mental cruelty.

So is it advisable to go for divorce because of cruelty or not? There are other instances which I cannot mention in a public forum...he has also stolen goods from a mall despite me telling him that we can purchase them...and tried to co-erce me into other unlawful and illegal activities involving underhanded income (he is a govt servant) and when I refused to comply...I have been punished duly by verbal assaults.

The past 3 years have been the most traumatic years of my life...and I would now like to move on from this time...I have truly loved this person and tried to understand him but despite my feelings I now want to have nothing to do with him. Living with him is impossible since I cannot even comprehend on a daily basis which mood he will be in, what I will be treated as. The only time he has been nice to me, is in front of other people...otherwise he is nice when he wants something from me...or he is indifferent to my existence. Any desire to speak to him is seen as a chance to remind me that I am wasting his time by discussing things because he is happy ignoring me and not talking to me.

Also, I would like to state that my greater desire is to simply get as far away from this person as possible. I have lost a lot of confidence, gained a lot of weight and taken a severe emotional blow due to this relationship. I would like to have the money and jewelery my parents spent on the wedding returned to us. I have kept none of the jewelery from their side. My parents do not even want anything except that this relationship should end so that I can live peacefully and they can also be at peace and not have to worry every day about the way I am being treated. Since I am working and earning well, I have no desire to claim any maintenance and do not want to have anything to do with this person at all.

@Randomethic

You have a case made out of cruelity. As is stated above in the detailed descripttion which is an abstract from a famous Judgment, cruelity is more of a mental aspect than physical.

When this person is no cruel, I think mutual divorce would not be made available to you by him. Also for mutual divorce, you have to wait for one year. As to file such petition for mutual divorce, both spouses have to live seperately for one year and file it. Then again after 6months they have to file an application based on the eralier petition. But both these petitions have to be moved jointly. And generally, second petition fails with the cadidature of either party. So its not expedient option.

I think divorce on the ground of cruelity is better option however, its tricky and cumbersome. Judges are also reluctant to grant such applications easily. Still in my view this is the best possile course available to you.

//peace

/Saurabh.V

Typo-error in my above post

When this person is SO   cruel  

//peace

/Saurabh.V

@randomethic

I would advice you go under some counselling sessions, as, such depressed state of mind wont let you go through the coming time. Life is full of surprises and its upto us to take them as learning or reckoning.

All the best!

//peace

/Saurabh.V

Thank you, for your reply. 

I understand what you mean by him being cruel and therefore not wanting to give me divorce by mutual consent. However, I have felt several times that he is being cruel to me because he wants me to be the one to say I want a divorce. 

Before we married, our courtship period lasted for 5 years during which time he was involved with several other women about whom I only found out gradually and had to slowly piece the truth together from among his lies.

He will do anything to keep his social image alive and intact but if it is me who initiates divorce  then he can lay the blame on my head. I am not bothered by this act of his especially since I have no desire or cause to interact with his family or acquaintances although many of them have been nice to me. I understand in the case of a dispute...the family cannot help take the side of their own child so their turning against me and blaming the failure of this relationship on me would not come as a real surprise. 

I am aware also that for the kind of person he is, it would be difficult for any woman at all to please him. He always expected me to get everything he wanted me to do, right the very first time. If I did not, and had to try again...he would punish me or tell me that my trying again did not matter at all because things have to be done properly the first time only or else they do not matter...at the same time, he expected me to keep trying to do those very same things, his way as well but not feel rejected or upset if he told me that my efforts make no difference anymore. Being with him, is a constant his way or the highway situation where it feels less like a loving relationship or marriage based on respect and mutuality and is more of an emotional and mental warzone where he has to shut me up or win all the time, at all costs.

I am already seeking help for my feelings and emotional battering I have received at the hands of someone who was supposed to love me but always made me cry and then laughed in my face and asked me "If I am laughing as you cry, doesn't it tell you that I don't care?"

Best option is to go for counselling session and try to reconcile and save the realtions and if at all it is not possible then try for Mutual Consent Divorce.As you have taken good decision that you will not claim anything from him exept your own jwellery etc. i think he will agree for this.

You are one of the best exmples of women who is not greedy and dont want to file false case against your husband. I salute you as otherwise most of the wife's are after money only.

I am sorry Mr Bhaskar but I have suffered enough....also the time for counselling is long past. I have suggested it several times and he thinks he is perfect and unwilling to go. I am not willing to live my life with someone who is incapable of realizing the anguish he causes another person and feels entitled to laugh at her misery but expects her to do his bidding and live with him anyway. 

Well said Bhasker.

@randomethic

I also want to appreciate your clear concise and approach. You are really a great lady and I wish all wife could think as clearly as you..............as most of the time.....wife files false cases on husband and his family due to matrimonial issues between the couple then don't give divorce and ask for maintenance.....and drag the cases for long once settled with maintenance.......despite repeated efforts of courts to either rejoin or divorce they don't agree unless very hefty alimony is given (to rejoin or divorce-all they mean is money)

After several years they regrets and their frustration burst on such forums but by that time they are in a position when neither their husband are ready to take them back (as they become used to singlehood or might have met someone nicer) nor their own parents supports.

I am not saying wife is always wrong…husband may be wrong…but what I meant to say is how can someone file criminal or other cases (by going out of society), try to arrest their old in-laws and husband and then ask for huge money from same people for their livelihood? …..Common we are in 21^st century and its high time that HMA get modified to legally allow people to go into contract along with marriage so that each and everyone knows the prons and cons if the relationship fails.

I am sorry Mr Bhaskar but I have suffered enough....also the time for counselling is long past. I have suggested it several times and he thinks he is perfect and unwilling to go. I am not willing to live my life with someone who is incapable of realizing the anguish he causes another person and feels entitled to laugh at her misery but expects her to do his bidding and live with him anyway. He expects a dasi who will give up everything for him and just be happy with whatever he wants to throw her way and get lost when he is done with her. I cannot ever dream of asking him to choose between the things and people he loves for me or to give up the things he loves for me... I am a human being and I deserve to be treated with respect and dignity as much as he does. His goal is not to be a partner but to be treated like a god. There is nothing that can be done to change the mindset of someone who thinks he is perfect.

I have witnessed him breaking things in our home and threatening to hit me and he has done so a few times although the injuries were minor. I cannot afford to let him near me or to hit me again. I cannot live my life in fear wondering when the next cruel episode will come. And believe me when I tell you...if we go for counselling...he will convince the counselor that he is the best, most well mannered, charming man alive and I am lucky to have him. He will make promises. But the moment we are alone, he will tell me, he never meant a word of what we said. 

How do I know? Because he has done exactly this, several times. I will get stuck again...in trying to emotionally distance myself and get depressed. My parents also deserve to see me happily married. If that is not happening...well so be it.

I am also aware of the means with which he has earned his money...I would rather donate anything I get than touch his money at all. I am capable of taking care of myself. Besides forging my signatures and taking part in other nefarious activities, he has been cruel, mean and degrading. It is also the opinion of my counselor that I will only risk my well being and mental health by continuing in this relationship...and that it will not go anywhere positive for me, after listening to my complete history with this man.

I respect your opinions Mr Bhaskar. I also hate the fact that my marriage has failed but it is now a dead weight that I am carrying on in life which is only holding me back. So, with all due respect...counseling is absolutely out of the question.

Also, perhaps you are not aware but in cases of emotional and verbal abuse joint counseling is actually not recommended because the abuser manages to turn things around and twists the things suggested by the counselor to his/her advantage and feels more entitled to abuse the partner.

Respected M. Piravi Perumal,

I had gone through the advice given by you regarding cruelty. Sir I would like to know that if husband had caught his wife two times in intolerable incident (SMS & e-mails communication with other males) and there after due to last incident they had a fight so husband slap once and while quarrel try to get mobile of her wife at the same time wife fall down & got injury on her chest. Also while husband was trying to close door wife put her hand between it so wife got wound on her one finger. At last wife by her own choice run away to her parent’s house. Husband tried a lot to compromise but all in vain. Mean while wife had started sending legal notice through lawyers demanding her belongings. Husband want his wife & daughter back in his life so with the help of counselors in family court & lawyer files case under section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of Conjugal Rights but on the very next day wife file case for divorce under Section 13(1)(i-a) on the basis of cruelty.

Sir I want to know that merely one time hitting & accidental injury can be defines as cruelty. Please reply soon SIR.

@ pc

I am not a great person at all! I am only normal. And whatever it is, that you mention about filing false cases, has been done by this person and his family in the case of his sister...to her in-laws. I am aware of the truth of this and have been punished by him because I wanted to stay away from the case they were filing which I knew was not completely true and did not want to be named as witness.

I went with him to bring her back from her husband's home and am aware 100% of the amount and nature of injuries she had and what all was purposely caused later.

There were some elements of DV involved but I know how they caused the other injuries to make it look like a stronger case and all the other illegal things that were done by him only...without telling his parents.

It is impossible for me to respect such a person...or to want to be part of such a family.

Without being antagonistic to anyone here, I also want to state that I am educated...my parents raised me to be a self-respecting, independent young woman capable of taking care of myself...capable of earning my own income and supporting myself in the hour of need.

But there are many lesser educated women who cannot work or even educated women who have been out of work for so long that the very idea of returning to a job is incomprehensible. Sometimes, men really do destroy a woman's confidence over the years by reducing their role in life to taking care of their parents, children and themselves.

Also, being men...you may not have noticed but I have experienced this discrimination first hand - employers in India do not consider it very positive if a woman takes a career break because of her wedding or to start a family and the longer the career break, the more they feel like she is simply not serious about working! Any other reasons (esp a divorce) stated as a need for employment is taken to mean that the employee would be more of a liability than an asset. One of my interviewers actually told me he thought I was a bored housewife looking for a job to distract myself from feeling bored with my married life. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Since men do not need to put their jobs on hold to get married or have children, it is difficult for them to comprehend how difficult it can be for a woman to find a respectable job....and face the overwhelming conditions of the marriage falling apart, and take care of the children. Innocent until proven guilty, right? It is sad that we place the blame of a marriage failing or lavish the praise of its success squarely on a woman's shoulders. Marriage is, was and always will be a relationship between two people. A partership. One that cannot work if either of the people involved does not want it to, regardless of the gender.

Conditions are made worse for them by our thought processes which say that once a girl is married, she belongs to the husband's household only and serve to alienate her from her parents which makes her feel like she belongs nowhere. Perhaps some women's or even parents' greed for demanding maintenance comes from bearing the 'burden' of their daughter's life again...which they thought they had let go of. Resentment, greed and antiquated mindsets can do funny things to people...they can make people be mean and practice some surprisingly strange behavior as well.

Having seen first-hand how the law can be twisted however, I cannot ignore that people do scheme and try to use things to their advantage. So I agree that many women use whatever means they can to get money...there are several others whose complaints....needs are completely genuine.

As for the man I wish to divorce...I asked him once what he thought were the qualities of a good husband and especially what makes him a good husband in his opinion...any guesses what he said?

He told me he makes a good husband because he has a good status in society due to his job! And that his contribution to the marriage is supposed to be zero...his wife's 100%.

The best thing I have ever heard from him till date is however that "He is fully capable of loving someone if he wants to, as long as they fulfill what he wants from them...but he is unwilling to love or care for me."

I do feel like asking men who complain their wives have left them and will not come back etc...etc... barring the genuine cases ofcourse...are you guys sure, you played the supportive, loving partner you pledged to be? Marriage is a two way street...so with a clear conscience...I do believe for every woman filing a false case...there are as many men as well...who have lied, cheated and hurt their wives and whose wives are still living in silence....and as many others who are cheating on their wives and forcing them to go away and then filing charges against them....

Believe me when I say...when a man threatens to hurt a woman physically or does so...it is a scary and paralyzing moment. One that takes a lot of courage to leave. Abuse of any form is insidious and while there are many harried husbands...there are also as many battered and broken women.

Everyone has flaws....I also have flaws as a person but I was never given the chance to rectify anything and only faced rejection at every step until I reached this place where I am unwilling to try anymore. And as much as I know the person I wish to divorce...this is what he has been telling me for the past three years...he wants.