Cruelty

  1. Matrimonial matters — Standard of proof to prove cruelty — Argument that the factor of cruelty is not proved because none of the witnesses stated that he has witnessed any sign of injury caused by the appellant on the person of the respondent. Held: Such an argument is itself indicative of the cruel mentality. For proof of cruelty, infliction of injury is not required by law — In matrimonial matters, the Courts have even treated false allegation against a wife to be a cruelty which results in to mental torture and loss of mutual confidence. Syed Imtiaz H. Shah v. Mst. Razia Begum & others 2011 SCR 233 (A)
  2. Matrimonial matters — dissolution of marriage — For proof of cruelty, it is not necessary that physical assault or injury is required to be proved rather sometimes, the conduct and behaviour without physical assault has also been treated by the Courts as cruelty. Even the mental torture suffered by the wife due to behaviour of her husband can also be treated as cruelty.  Stand of respondent (husband) that plaintiff (wife) during the period of study in school time used to travel by her taxi for years and when she and her mother failed to pay the fare she (wife) was wedded with him, also speaks of his (husband) mental approach and such allegation also amounts to mental torture and cruelty. Muhammad Sabil Khan & another v. Saima Inshad 2014 SCR 718 (E)
  3. Matrimonial matters — Cruelty is not confined only to physical torture — cruel attitude is not confined only to the extent of physical violence, it includes mental torture, hateful attitude of husband or other inmates of the house — also includes the circumstances in presence of which the wife is forced to abandon the house of her husband. Azhar Bashir v. Sadia Shafique 2015 SCR 521 (A) 2014 SCR 504 rel.
  4. Matrimonial matters — The cruelty is not confined only to physical torture. Even the cruel attitude is not confined only to the extent of physical violence, it includes the mental torture, hateful attitude of husband or other inmates of the house and also includes other circumstances, in presence of which the wife is forced to abandon the house of her husband. Muhammad Zaheer- ud-Din Babar v. Mst. Shahzia Kousar & another 2015 SCR 621 (A) 2014 SCR 504 rel.
  5. — For proving cruelty, physical assault or torture is not necessary. The conduct of the husband, which includes abusive and insulting language to the wife, can also be treated as cruelty. Shahzed Rauf v. Shabana Yasmin 2017 SCR 1522 (F)
  6. — bad behaviour and mental agony—amount to cruelty— wife did not take stance that the husband physically tortured her, rather she categorically mentioned in plaint that husband mentally tortured her and used to ask her that he wants to contract second marriage with the girl whom he likes. Respondent/wife remained determined on this version and the witnesses also supported her version and this position is also further strengthened from the conduct of the husband/appellant. Thus, it cannot be said that the respondent/wife failed to prove the element of cruelty. It is worthwhile to mention here that cruelty does not mean only physical torture rather the bad behaviour/mental agony is also treated as cruelty. Muhammad Sohrab vs Sobia Hayat 2018 SCR 1167 (B)
  7.  —its proof of—Held that in order to prove the ground of cruelty, physical assault on the part of the husband or his family members is not necessary—if the conduct of the husband is of such nature which create tense situation and frustrate the feelings of the wife, that can be considered as cruelty. Sehrish Javed v. Imran Khan & 5 others 2020 SCR 378 (A) 2011 SCR 233 ref
  8. —Cruelty is not confined to physical torture—even the cruel attitude is not confined only to the extent of physical violence— it includes the mental torture, hateful attitude of husband or other inmates of the house and also include other circumstances, in presence of which, the wife is forced to abandon the house of her husband. Farhan Farooq versus Salma Mehmood 2021 SCR 310 (A) 2014 SCR 504 rel.
  9. — In order to prove the factum of cruelty, it is not necessary that physical assault or injury is required to be proved rather mental torture alone is sufficient to prove the factum of cruelty.  Ghazanfer Sayyad Versus Mst. Tajeeba Begum 2021 SCR 493 (A&B)
  10. —not only confined to the physical assault rather mental agony faced by the wife also amounts to cruelty. Syed Arshad Gillani & another Versus Mst. Safeena Kazmi 2021 SCR 536 (A) Mevish Kazmi v. Pervaiz Hussain & others civil appeal No. 544 of 2019, decided on 6.09.2021 rel.
  11. —The problematic conduct of one partner may cause smaller to greater inconvenience for other —Cruelty in matrimonial life is considered to be of founded variety, which may be an act violent or non-violent, gestures or mere silence. Mehvish Kazmi versus Parvaiz Hussain & another 2021 SCR 609 (B)
  12. —Proof of—principle— to prove cruelty, it is not necessary to manifest physical assault or injury, rather sometimes, the conduct and behaviour amounting to mental assault, has also been treated by the Courts as cruelty. Mehvish Kazmi versus Parvaiz Hussain & another 2021 SCR 609 (E)
  13.  —cruelty—single incident of violence; whether should be considered as cruelty and be ground for dissolution of marriage or be considered as social norm—-contention that only a single incident of violence should not lead to the dissolution of the marriage due to cruelty under the premise that violence is widespread in every household, like a social norm in society— held: argument also lacks credibility. While it is acknowledged that domestic violence exists but portraying it as a cultural norm is baseless. In truth, the majority of individual in our society prioritize respect and harmony in their relationships, therefore, attempting to downplay the severity and cruelty by suggesting it is a social norm is misguided. Each instance of cruelty should be evaluated independently, considering its impact and severity on the victim. Justifying cruelty based on erroneous notion of its prevalence undermines the gravity of the issue and fails to provide sound reasoning for such behaviour. Leave refused. Mozzam Ali Danish vs Anila Nazir 2024 SCR 396(B)
  14.  — matrimonial matters — dissolution of marriage — cruelty — does not mean only physical torture rather bad behaviour/mental agony is also treated as cruelty — to prove the ground of cruelty, physical assault on the part of husband or his family members is not necessary — if the conduct of the husband is of such nature which creates tense situation and frustrates the feelings of the wife, that can be considered as cruelty. Muhammad Afzal Khan vs Amreen Gul 2024 SCR 271 (A) 2018 SCR 1167 & 2014 SCR 718 rel
  15. —-proof of cruelty—physical assault not essential to establish cruelty, mental assault also amounts to cruelty—while physical cruelty has been established, it is essential to note that proof of cruelty in matrimonial matters extends beyond the physical assault or injuries as recognized by the Courts where conduct and behaviour amounting to mental assault also constitute cruelty. Mozzam Ali Danish vs Anila Nazir 2024 SCR 396(A) Azhar Bashir vs. Sadia Shafique, 2015 SCR 521]; Muhammad Zaheer-ud-Din Babar vs. Mst. Shazia Kousar and another, 2015 SCR 621] rel.
error: Content is protected !!