Cruelty as a ground for Divorce
Cruelty is defined by the Oxford
Dictionary as the quality of being cruel and inflicting suffering. Cruelty is
not expressly defined in any family law statute. However, the framework of
human behaviour in behaviour has been portrayed in the form of matrimonial
duties and obligations under section 13 (1) (i)(a) of the act. In order to
address marital violence and cruel treatment, the Indian parliament enacted
Section 498 of the Indian Penal Code, which states that a person's behaviour
toward the business of another that is detrimental to the other's business
includes cruelty.
Cruelty is defined differently under
different personal laws.
Muhammad Ullah's cruelty test is
based on the coronavirus in angular material standard, and the husband is the
culprit, causing bodily and mental agony to the wife. This was developed in the
case of Shamsunnisa Begum v. G. Subban Basha And Anr. Certain factors inherent
in the repeal of the Muslim Marriage Act of 1939 resulted in cruelty. This
includes the habit of abusing the wife and making her life unpleasant through
physical ill-treatment or by a conduct that falls short of that connected with
women of foul repute leading an infamous life in order to prevent her from
exercising her right.
The cruelty clause has been viewed in
light of the prophet's proclamation that women are as tender as glasses and
that he is a best man who is attentive to his wife.
The Zoroastrian personal law,
controlled by the Parsi marriage and divorce legislation 1936, which was
revised in 1988, is nearly identical to the Special Marriage Act. Under Section
32 of the Parsi Marriage and Divorce Act, ten grounds for divorce are spelled
down. One of the reasons for divorce was said to be cruelty. In the case of
Solomon Devasahayam v. Chandirah May, the court ruled that Cruelty was
mentioned as a reason for divorce separation. This was determined to be
consistent with Section 27(1) of the other Special Marriage Act of 1954 and
Section 23 of the Dissolution of Muslim Marriage Act of 1939.
From the standpoint of Christian
personal law, one of the most remarkable elements of cruelty being considered
as a reason for divorce is The Christian personal law has undergone a lot of
revisions and changes as a result of several popular campaigns aimed at
changing Christians' view on include cruelty as a justification for divorce.
Previously, it was stated in Section 22 of the Indian Divorce Act of 1869 that
Christian spouses are not entitled to divorce on the grounds of adultery,
cruelty, or desertion. This resulted in discrimination, which was ruled to be a
violation of Article 15 of the Constitution in Pragati Varghese v. Cyril George
Varghese. Following that, the law commission's 90th report made proposals for
the addition of these three elements as grounds for divorce. Because the
personal laws of other religions make cruelty as a justification for divorce
available to Christians. This resulted in discrimination towards Christians in
relation to Hindus. Muslims in Parsi are ladies who are unreasonable. Following
that, in 1983, a number of amendments were made to the personal law by the
director of the joint women's programme, a Christian women's Institute. Cruelty
was added as a basis for divorce under the Indian divorce legislation after
efforts were made to incorporate it as a ground for divorce.
Given the differences in the various
personal laws relating to divorce and the serious discriminations and
exclusions that result, the need of the hour is for a Uniform Civil Code in
which all people belonging to one country are treated equally and the positive
provisions applicable to a particular religion are also applicable to the other
people. Lawmakers must also evaluate the addition of cruelty from the male
standpoint. Personal law laws does not take into account guys who are the
victims of cruelty in married partnerships. As a result, it is critical to
assess everyone from a neutral standpoint in order to preserve true equality as
enshrined in the Constitution.
Comments
Post a Comment