Cruel treatment in Georgia requires an intention to wound. Conduct that hurt you badly, but was never meant to, is not this ground.
Where the Requirement Comes From
The word is in the statute. OCGA 19-5-3(10) defines cruel treatment as the “willful infliction of pain,” and Hilburn v. Hilburn, 210 Ga. 497 (1954), put the consequence plainly: “Without the element of wilfulness, there can be no cruel treatment which will authorize the grant of a divorce upon that ground.”
What Willfulness Means
In Ewing v. Ewing, 211 Ga. 803 (1955), the Georgia Supreme Court quoted Ring v. Ring, 118 Ga. 183 (1903): “It must be the intention of the offending party to injure – to wound. It must be a wilful act the purpose of which is to hurt. Words spoken or acts done may cause the greatest pain – the most acute suffering, but in the absence of an intention to wound they do not constitute the cruel treatment contemplated by the law as a ground for divorce.”
The wife in Ewing alleged that her husband had shown “an attitude of wilful indifference” and had repeatedly indicated that he did not love her or want her company. Her petition was held insufficient, because she never alleged that anything he said or did was done for the purpose of injuring her.
Illness Versus Temper
Willfulness also asks whether your spouse was capable of forming that intent. In Vaughan v. Vaughan, 223 Ga. 298 (1967), the husband’s own testimony showed that his wife was mentally ill when the conduct he complained of occurred, and the divorce granted to him was reversed.
An ungovernable temper is different. In Morris v. Morris, 202 Ga. 431 (1947), the Court read an allegation that a wife had an “uncontrollable temper” to mean that she made no effort to curb it, not that she was mentally irresponsible.
Contact Us
This post is a quick overview of the law and is not intended as legal advice. Please feel free to contact our office for a consultation if you have questions about this or any other legal aspects regarding your case!