legal cruelty

Sir in the Section 498A of IPC cruelty has been explained

for the purposes of this section cruelty means

 a)
any willful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the
woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life,
limb or health (whether mental or

b) harassment
of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or
any person related to her to meet any unlawful demandfor any property
or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or anyperson related to her to meet such demand.

Coming
to Section 304-B though cruelty is a main ingredient there is no
explanation with regard to which acts construe cruelty. But it was
opined in the case of Kaliyaperumal Vs State of T.N 2003 Cr.L.J.
4321that the explanation to 498A gives the meaning of cruelty. In
Section 304B there is no such explanation about the meaning of cruelty.
But having regard to the common back ground to these offenses, it has
to be taken that the meaning of cruelty or harassment is the same as
prescribed in

In
a finding given by the supreme court in the case of Shobha Rani
VsMadhukar Reddy reported in AIR 1988 SC 121 while defining cruelty
under Section 13 (1) (a) of Hindu Marriage Act the Apex court opined

that
the word could not have need defined. Indeed it could not havebeen
defined. It has been used in relation to human conduct or behaviour. It
is the conduct in relation to or in respect of matrimonial duties and
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 the physical the court will have no problem
to determine it. It is a question of fact and degree. If it is mental
the problem presents difficulty. First the enquiry must begin as to the
nature of the cruel treatment. Second the impact of such treatment in
the mind of the spouse. Whether it caused reasonable apprehension that
it would be harmful or injurious to live with the other. Ultimately, it
is a matter of inference to be drawn by taking into account the nature
of the conduct and its effect on the complaining spouse.

It
will be necessary to bear in mind that there has been marked change in
the life around us. In matrimonial duties and responsibilities in
particular, we find a sea change. They are of varying degrees form
house-to-house or person-to-person. Therefore, when a spouse makes
complaint about the treatment of cruelty by the partner in life the
court should not search for standard in life. A set of facts
stigmatized as cruelty in one case may not be so in another case. It
may also depend upon the economic or social conditions and also upon
their culture and human values to which they attach importance. We may
not go parallel with them. There may be a generation gap between us and
the parties. It would also be better if we less depend upon precedents.
Because as Lord Denning opined

“the
categories of cruelty are not closed”. Each case may be
different. 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

The law of the land is always not an embodied act but a pronounced fact. Cruelty is dealt in favour of the wife by the courts even there are excesses or misuse. The facts, circumstances will prove the cruel acts. A mere gusture is a cruel act. An allegation of chastity is also a cruel act. Sreenivas has answered the defenition part.

I  think   Srinivas   has  said    it    all.

good comments Srinivas:

Thank you very much Assumi Sir.

thank you all.it is no denying that mr srinivas made a full stop.

well said srinivas sir