The Hindu Marriage Act of 1955, which governs the law relating to Indian marriages between Hindus, and the Special Marriage Act of 1954, which governs the law relating to all Indian marriages regardless of religious denomination, contains identical grounds for divorce: “cruelty” after solemnisation of the marriage. However, these Acts do not define what cruelty is. Judicial pronouncements on the definition of “cruelty” are therefore critical for determining who can file a cruelty-based divorce petition, in both Hindu and non-Hindu marriages. According to the law laid down by the Supreme Court in several judgments, there are three types of cruelty. The first one is physical, i.e., violent conduct causing pain to the spouse; the second is mental cruelty, which makes it impossible to reasonably expect one’s spouse to put up with the conduct complained of and live with the other; and the third, is legal cruelty. Since “cruelty” is legally defined, it would be helpful to refer to judicial pronouncements which have discussed the concept in the context of granting divorce to aggrieved spouses. The Supreme Court’s case law is instructive in this regard. In Shobha Rani v Madhukar Reddi (1988) (Supreme Court), the wife alleged that the husband and his parents demanded dowry. In its ruling, the apex court emphasised that “cruelty” can have no fixed definition. According to the court, “cruelty” is the “conduct in relation to or in respect of matrimonial conduct in respect of matrimonial obligations”. It is the conduct that adversely affects the spouse. Such cruelty can be either ‘mental’ or ‘physical’, intentional or unintentional. For example, unintentionally waking your spouse up in the middle of the night may be mental cruelty; the intention is not an essential element of cruelty but it may be present. Physical cruelty is less ambiguous and more “a question of fact and degree.” To judge whether or not something is mental cruelty, the nature of the cruel treatment has to be examined, and the mental impact it has on the spouse, and whether it causes reasonable apprehension in the mind of that spouse that it would be “harmful” or “injurious” for them to live with the other spouse. Cruelty then is ultimately a matter of inference which is to be drawn by taking into account the nature of the conduct and the effect it has on a complaining spouse. The nature of allegations need not only be illegal conduct such as asking for dowry. Making allegations against your spouse in your written statement filed before the court in judicial proceedings may also be held to constitute cruelty. For instance, in the Supreme Court case of V. Bhagat vs D. Bhagat (1994), the wife alleged in her written statement that her husband was suffering from “mental problems and paranoid disorder”. The wife’s lawyer also leveled allegations of “lunacy” and “insanity” against the husband and his family while he was conducting a cross-examination. The court held these allegations against the husband to constitute “cruelty”.