While allowing a petition filed by an estranged wife seeking divorce, the Supreme Court said that the word ‘cruelty’ under Section 13(1) (ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act gives wide discretion to Courts ‘to apply it liberally and contextually’. While interpreting the meaning of cruelty, the Court said that what is cruelty for a person, may not be cruelty for another and that the meaning has to be ascertained in its context. “It has to be applied from person to person while taking note of the attending circumstances.”, the Apex Court said. Referring to the Amending Act of 1976 of the HMA which introduced clauses (ia) and (ib) to Section 13 and Section 13A of the Act, that added various grounds for divorce, the Court observed that the Statement of Objects and Reasons of the Amendment Act makes it clear that the intention of the legislature was to liberalize the grant of divorce. On the question of burden of proof in cases of divorce, the Apex Court said that it lies on the petitioner. “However, the degree of probability is not one beyond reasonable doubt, but of preponderance.” The Court clarified. Forcing incompatible partners to stay together could cause more harm to the children, the Court observed: “The court must also keep in mind that the home which is meant to be a happy and loveable place to live, becomes a source of misery and agony where the partners fight. When there are children they become direct victims of the said fights, though they may practically have no role in the breakdown of marriage.” In the matter at hand, the Apex Court noted that for fifteen years, the parties had been living apart. The Apex Court acknowledged that the marriage was no longer viable, and the relationship had essentially ended, lacking only a formal divorce decree.