Day to Day occurances are not major factors

Hi Folks!

In this second part, I would try to state what are the happenings that normally occur in a married life and would remain out of the parameters of cruelty, what exactly would constitute cruelty and what the Courts generally take into consideration.

Even though a very wide meaning has been given to legal cruelty, the Courts also take the ordinary wear and tear of married life into consideration. Thus every act or conduct of one party, which makes the other party unhappy or miserable, cannot amount to cruelty. The fact that one person is moody, whimsical, mean, stingy, selfish, boorish, irritable, inconsiderate, etc will not amount to cruelty. Similarly, mere disavowal of love, wounding of the feeling or even expression of hatred will not be a conduct constituting cruelty. Using vulgar, obscene or rude language or lack of manners may not amount to a conduct constituting cruelty. Day to day ordinary quarrels in married life, minor misunderstanding, raising of tone of voice does not amount to cruelty.

So which acts or/and conduct will constitute cruelty would be the next question. The conduct should be such which is “inexcusable”, “unpardonable” or “grossly excessive”. In short, the conduct should be such that no reasonable person would tolerate it or consider that a person should be called upon to endure it. It may be that various acts or conduct complained of in isolation to each other do not amount to cruelty, but in their overall effect they may amount to cruelty. In general, cruelty is, in its character, cumulative. It may consist of a single act or conduct or it may consist of a series of acts, conducts none of which by itself may be said to constitute cruelty but in their totality they do.

In deciding whether or not a particular state of affairs, conduct or act amounts to cruelty the Court considers the social status, the susceptibilities of the innocent spouses as well as custom and manners in reference to the whole matrimonial relationship. Acts which appear on the face to be unpardonable may in particular circumstances be, if not justified, at least excused by the complainant’s own conduct and the degree and the amount of provocation the complainant has offered. It is all a question of degree and the Court will always bear in mind the intensity and degree of the respondent’s conduct whilst making allowance for the intensity and degree of provocation offered by the petitioner and all other relevant facts. However any conduct of one spouse that causes disgrace to the other spouse or subjects him or her to a course of annoyance and indignity amounts to cruelty. Most importantly cruelty need not be beyond all reasonable doubts. Cruelty may be proved on balance of probabilities. So there is no rigid test of “beyond reasonable doubt” in cases of cruelty. However provocation by the complainant is a good defense against charges of cruelty. An important yet disturbing and perhaps unavoidable factor is that the upbringing, social views and gender prejudices if any that the Judge has, too would reflect in his assessment of the situation.

With warm regards
iamthatdude

Divorce - Cruelty as a major ground

Hi folks!

Often it is said that in a marriage even a week old there would be grounds for divorce, but the trick is to find grounds to forge ahead! No doubt, this would be the success mantra. We have talked about marriage, love, guilt,shame, lust, and gossip and now lets move on to breaking up of marriage, i.e. Divorce. This is not to encourage folks to go for divorce. : -), But to let them know as to what would constitute good grounds and that, due to any over sensitiveness, one should not mistake the normal misunderstandings that arise, to be sufficient grounds to break the knot. :-). This is also to warn any body who has any intention of straying, not to do so, or at least to do so within the permissible parameters of law. : -). Just kidding!This is an attempt to warn folks of the common pitfalls and how to identify whether what is happening in your life is justifiable. I would like to present the subject in three parts, largely in the Indian Context .

First I would attempt to state the common grounds for Divorce, the types of cruelty and how the intention behind the cruelty can never be the defense for such behaviour.What would be the grounds for Divorce? Of all the matrimonial offences, cruelty is the most difficult to define. The legislature and Judiciary have deliberately refrained from attempting any definition of cruelty. Acts of cruelty are infinitely variable.Cruelty is a ground for divorce, the other major grounds being, adultery, two years desertion, insanity or mental disorder, venereal disease in a communicable form etc.

What are the Types of cruelty? Cruelty has been givena very wide meaning. It includes both physical crueltyand mental cruelty. Husband's association with womenof evil repute, infamous life, husband's disposal of wife's property or preventing her from disposing of her property, husband's obstruction in the observance of her religious practices etc. Cruelty may be subtle or brutal. It may be by words, gestures or mere silence. Cruelty is such a conduct of the spouse as to have caused danger to life or health, bodily or mental, or gives rise to reasonable apprehension of such a danger. When reprehensible conduct or departure from normal standards of conjugal kindness occurs so much so that if a reasonable person, after taking due account of the temperament and all the other particular circumstances, would consider that the conduct complained of is such that the spouse shouldnot be called to endure it, then it amounts to cruelty.The motive or intention that could have resulted in this behaviour is not a defense in cases of cruelty.If bitter waters are flowing, it is not necessary to inquire from what source they spring. It is sufficient if cruelty is shown to exist. Acts of physical violence on the part of one spouse against the other resulting in injury to body, limb or health or causing a reasonable apprehension there of , amounts to cruelty.What acts of physical violence will amount to cruelty will differ from case to case, depending upon the gravity of acts and susceptibility or sensibility of the petitioner. Mental cruelty is also an important aspect. Where as a blow speaks for itself, insults, humiliations, deprivations and the like would need the interpretation of the underlying intention for an assessment of their fullest significance. Thus where a spouse is subject to continuous ill-treatment, cessation of marital intercourse, studied neglect or indifference, insults, abuses, humiliations etc, it is certainly a conduct which would make married life together impossible to be endured and would make life very unhappy and miserable.

With warm regards

iamthatdude

Gossip

Why do we gossip? Does it serve any useful purpose? Is it always a canard or does it sometimes contain nuggets of information if we search in the haystack of misinformation?

Gossip can give a vicarious pleasure to those who indulge in it but more often than not, the results are only discomfort/pain to the subjects of their gossip. Occasionally gossip does elevate ‘the subject’ to a level of exaltation. This I guess happens more in relation to our ‘Guru’s’ mystic powers or when talking about one’s favourite hero/friend/lover. Gossip can enhance someone’s qualities and attributes on such occasions. Most of the time, Gossip is indulge in trashing someone. If it’s the harmless variety, the ‘subject’ escapes without much hurt apart. If it’s the ‘spiteful’ variety, its more destructive than a bulldozer and can smash your reputation to smithereens.

The expression “‘bitching’ about someone” seems to convey the impression that gossiping is a feminine pastime. I guess the folks out there might have a difference of opinion about that :-).

With warm regards

iamthatdude

Disinterested?

Hi Folks
What do you do when you feel disinterested? Often do you do things because you feel obligated to do so? Do you go to church because you 'have to' on Sunday? I think the right approach should be to do a thing if you feel like doing it and not to do anything if you dont feel like it. In that way, you are being true to yourself
with luv
iamthatdude

Words and more words

Hi Friends!

How much of our thoughts can we capture in words? I guess not much. Often we say, our feelings are indescribable, our thoughts are unexpressable, our emotions cannot be conveyed in words, etc. How true ! So much of our real communication is non-verbal.. The unspoken word, the glances, the looks, the knowing smile or sometimes just the eye contact speaks volumes whereas any attempt at speech would not only miserably fail but also ruin the moment.
with warm regards
iamthatdude

Guilt and Shame - How different?

Hi Friends !

Is guilt and shame different? Coming to think of it, I would say not. Rather I would say guilt is only an offshoot of the primary emotion shame. Guilt arises out of shame. It is not necessary that one will feel ashamed only in the eyes of others. When one feels ashamed in our own eyes, the shame is called guilt. There is not much difference between them at all. Both are feelings that evoke thoughts of embarrassment that psychologically induces fear.its your thoughts associated with the action completed/contemplated, that decides the outcome. If you are not ashamed,you dont feel guilty too. :-)

chagrin, remorse, humiliation, regret, mortification, contrition etc are all arising out of Shame, of course with subtleties and nuances,that set them slightly apart from one another and mainly depending on the degree or extent of shame that you feel in your heart !!
with warm regards
iamthatdude

When are you at the stage of "Feeling the Fear of being guilty?"

Hi friends!

If you are of the opinion that, LUST is no sin, and it’s a natural phenomenon for it to crop up even in beautiful minds and one needn’t feel guilty when one finds a person from opposite sex attractive, and one has an 'Ephemeral' feeling / fantasise. However, you need to feel the fear of being GUILTY if you let your LUST for another man/woman over-rule your committed relationship, then they question arises, What would be the manner of “ Lust over –ruling”? to give rise to the stage of “Feel the fear of being guilty”?

“Feel the fear of being guilty” has three components: First you should have a feeling. Second the feeling should be that of fear. Third what you should fear is of “being guilty”.

Feeling is a perception of something that a person has knowledge of through his senses or emotions, though not always based on reason. Feeling as far as a person is concerned is within the realm of reality as he directly experiences it. Therefore any feeling is real.

Fear is an unpleasant emotion caused generally by immediately present or impending evil or danger. Now the impending evil or danger can be real or imaginary, but the fear experienced would be real.

However, guilt is an emotion directly linked to a question of fact - the state of having offended or of having committed an offence. Therefore “being guilty” too continues to be a state. When the jury returns the verdict, guilty or not guilty, it refers to the question whether the defendant has committed the offence or not. Lets take another example. Imagine you are on a diet. You eat a cake. You say you have a guilty feeling. Here the feeling is that of being aware that you have committed an offence – an offence of having eaten a cake when you are on a diet. The guilt – the state of having offended- is for real. The feeling is also for real.

Thus to “Feel the fear of being guilty”; automatically presupposes the necessity of “being guilty” to be real, for the fear to be real and for the feeling of such a fear to be real.

To my mind, this “over –ruling” of lust so as to affect a committed relationship can happen only when the transient feelings translate into tangible action; for if we accept Abhi’s version, Lust is no sin as long as the transient feelings remain just that - feelings in your mind.

However the moment the transient feelings result in concrete action, it transcends the boundary of our mind and comes within the realm of the definite possibility of it becoming known to someone other than us. The moment it results in action, then there is no intermediary stage of “fear of being guilty”. You either feel guilty or you don’t. Similarly this stage would also only give rise to another possibility of feeling shame or not. These two stages are concomitant. There cannot be a “feeling fear of shame” after the action. The moment an action occurs you are either ashamed of it or not.

The stages of “feeling fear of being guilty” and “feeling fear of shame” can exist only when the “being guilty” – stage is related to the realm of thoughts or the transient feelings/impulses. The moment the stage of thought passes, the above states cannot exist.

Cheers
iamthatdude