n. the deliberate and destructive infliction of physical or psychological pain on another. Generally in most states numerous types of "cruelty," "extreme cruelty," and/or "mental cruelty" was previously reasons for divorce proceedings if proved. This brought about countless unnecessary (and quite often exaggerated or false) derogatory (nasty) testimony about the other party. There clearly was little standardization of what constituted enough "cruelty" to show a divorce must certanly be given. Beginning inside 1960s "no fault" separation (often today called "dissolution") began to replace controversial divorces in most says, to ensure incompatibility became adequate reasons for giving a divorce.
The Intentional and malicious infliction of physical suffering upon residing creatures, specially people; or, as placed on the latter, the wanton, harmful, and unnecessary infliction of pain upon the body, or perhaps the thoughts and thoughts; abusive therapy; inhumanity; outrage. Chiefly used in regulations of divorce proceedings, such expressions as "cruel and abusive treatment," "cruel and barbarous therapy," or "cruel and inhuman treatment," regarding meaning of which, and of "cruelty" in this feeling, see might v. May, 62 Pa. 206; Waldron v. Waldron, 85 Cal. 251, 24 Pac. 049, 9 L. R. A. 48T; Ring v. Ring, 118 Ga. 183, 44 S. E. 801, 62 L. R. A. 878; Sharp v. Sharp, 16 111. App. 348; Myrick v. Myrick, 67 Ga. 771; Shell v. Shell, 2 Sneed (Tenn.) 716; Vignos v. Vignos, 15 III. 180; bad v. bad, 8 N. II. 307, 29 Am. Dec. 604; Goodrich v. Goodrich, 44 Ala. 670; Bailey v. Bailey, 97 Mass. 373; near v. Close, 25 N. J. Eq. 520; Cole v. Cole, 23 Iowa. 433; Turner v. Turner. 122 Iowa, 113. 97 N. W. 997; Levin v. Levin, 68 S. C. 123, 40 S. E. 945. As between couple. Those acts which impact the life, the, or even the coziness, of the party aggrieved and give a reasonable apprehension of bodily hurt, are known as "cruelty." What simply wounds the feelings is seldom accepted to be cruelty, unless the work be accompanied with physical damage, either real or menaced. Mere austerity of mood, petulance of manners, rudeness of language, a want of civil attention and accommodation, also periodic sallies of enthusiasm, will likely not amount to appropriate cruelty; a fortiori, the denial of little indulgences and specific rooms, that your delicacy around the globe is likely to quantity among its necessaries, is not cruelty. The negative information of cruelty tend to be possibly the most useful, underneath the endless selection of instances that may occur, by showing what's not cruelty. Evans v. Evans, 1 Hagg. Const. 35; Westmeath v. Westmeath, 4 Eng. Ecc. 238, 311. 312. Cruelty includes both willfulness and malicious mood of brain with which an act is completed, as well as a top amount of pain inflicted. Acts simply accidental, though they inflict great pain, are not "cruel," in the sense of the word as used in statutes against cruelty. Comm. v. Me- Clellan, 101 Mass. 34.
early 13c., from Old French crualt
the quality of being cruel and causing tension or irritation
- emotions of severe heartlessness
- a cruel act; a deliberate infliction of pain and struggling
- The feature or quality of being harsh; a disposition to offer unneeded pain or suffering to other people; inhumanity; barbarity.
- a harsh and barbarous deed; inhuman treatment; the act of willfully causing unnecessary pain.
She helped to inaugurate the society for the prevention of cruelty to children, and was a keen supporter of the ragged school union.