Whether one slap would consitute as a ground for divorce?

“Domestic Violence” has been defined under Section 3 of the Protection of Women from
Domestic Violence Act, 2005. Section 3 reads as follows,

“For the purposes of this Act, any act, omission or commission or conduct of the respondent
shall constitute domestic violence in case it -

(a) harms or injures or endangers the health, safety, life, limb or well-being, whether
mental or physical, of the aggrieved person or tends to do so and includes causing
physical abuse, sexual abuse, verbal and emotional abuse and economic abuse; or

(b) harasses, harms, injures or endangers the aggrieved person with a view to coerce her
or any other person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any dowry or other
property or valuable security; or

(c) has the effect of threatening the aggrieved person or any person related to her by any
conduct mentioned in clause (a) or clause (b); or

(d) otherwise injures or causes harm, whether physical or mental, to the aggrieved person.

Under Section 13 (1) (ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, the fact that a party to a marriage has
been trated with cruelty by their partner shall be a valid ground for divorce.

In Chetan Das v. Kamla Devi1, the Apex Court stated that 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.

1
(2001) (4) SC 250
In A. Jayachandra v. Aneel Kaur2, the Apex Court, speaking through three learned Judges, has
stated that 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 live. The
conduct, taking into consideration the circumstances and the 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 description 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 an 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(Hindu Marriage Act, 1955). 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 Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of G.V.N. Kameswara Rao v. G.Jabilli3 held
that,

"The court has to come to a conclusion whether the acts committed by the counter-petitioner
amount to cruelty, and it is to be assessed having regard to the status of the parties in social life,
their customs, traditions and other similar circumstances. Having regard to the sanctity and
importance of marriages in a community life, the court should consider whether the conduct of
the counterpetitioner is such that it has become intolerable for the petitioner to suffer any longer
and to live together is impossible, and then only the court can find that there is cruelty on the part
of the counter- petitioner. This is to be judged not from a solitary incident, but on an overall
consideration of all relevant circumstances."

2
2005 2 SCC 22
3
(2002) 2 SCC 296
In the case of Shobha Rani v. Madhukar Reddi4, the Hon’ble Supreme Court while discussing
the meaning of term cruelty has held as follow:

“Section 13(1)(i-a) uses the words "treated the petitioner with cruelty". The word "cruelty" has
not been defined. Indeed it could not have been defined. It has been used in relation to human
conduct or human 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 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. 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. 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 from house to house or person to person.
Therefore, when a spouse makes complaint about the treatment of cruelty by the partner in life or
relations, the Court should not search for standard in life. A set of facts stigmatised as cruelty in
one case may not be so in another case. The cruelty alleged may largely depend upon the type of
life the parties are accustomed to or their economic and social conditions. It may also depend
upon their culture and human values to which they attach importance. We, the judges and
lawyers, therefore, should not import our own notions of life. We may not go in parallel with
them. There may be a generation gap between us and the parties. It would be better if we keep
aside our customs and manners. It would be also better if we less depend upon precedents.
Because as Lord Denning said in Sheldon v. Sheldon, [1966] 2 All E.R. 257 (259) "the
categories of cruelty are not closed." Each case may be different. We deal with the conduct of
human beings who are not 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
4
AIR 1988 SC 121
depending upon the human behaviour, capacity or incapability to tolerate the conduct
complained of. Such is the wonderful/realm of cruelty. These preliminary observations are
intended to emphasize that the Court in matrimonial cases is not concerned with ideals in family
life. The Court has only to understand the spouses concerned as nature made them, and consider
their particular grievance.

As Lord Reid observed in Gollins v. Gollins, [1963] 2 All. E.R. 966 (1972): "In matrimonial
affairs we are not dealing with objective standards, it is not a matrimonial offence to fall below
the standard of the reasonable man (or the reasonable woman). We are dealing with this man or
this woman."

Therefore, in light of the above judgements, it may be argued that the viability of domestic
violence or cruelty by a spouse as a ground for divorce depends upon the facts and circumstances
of each case.

Consequently, the question whether the one slap would constitute as a ground for divorce would
have to be tested on altar of the entirety of the facts and circumstances of each case. Therefore,
factors such as history of abuse, (whether mental, physical, sexual, verbal, emotional or
economical) would have to be considered before a decree on divorce on the ground on one slap.

However, Courts are reluctant to grant a decree for divorce on the grounds of sanctity of
marriage and would not grant such a decree until the marriage has irretrievably broken down.

Therefore, in my opinion, a single slap would not consitute a valid ground for divorce in the
absence of any other facts and circumstances that could be constituted as ‘cruelty’ under Section
13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.