C.K V B.M[2012]eKLR a character as to cause danger to life, limb, or health, bodily or mental or so as to give rise to a reasonable apprehension of such a danger” (see Russell v. Russell [1895] P. 315, 322. See also D. Tolstoy on The Law and Practice of Divorce, Sixth Edn. It is important to point out that it is settled law that intention is not a necessary ingredient of cruelty and neither a malevolent intention, nor a desire to injure, nor knowledge that the act done is wrong and hurtful, need be present for conduct to amount to cruelty (see Gollins v Gollins [1964] AC 644; Williams v Williams [1964) AC 698, 760. Tolstoy, 6thEdn states that the question in all cases is whether the Respondent’s conduct was cruel, rather than whether the Respondent was himself or herself a cruel person (see Gollins v. Gollins (supra) at page 670 and Williams v Williams (supra) at pg 721. It is however worth noting that intention is not totally irrelevant because conduct which is intended to hurt strikes with a sharper edge than conduct which is the consequence of mere obtuseness or indifference (see Jamieson v Jamieson [1952] A.C. 525, 535. Moreover, a deliberate intention to hurt may turn into “cruelty conduct” which, without such intention, would not constitute cruelty. In this case, the Respondent’s acts in torturing and humiliating the Petitioner, his meanness, and sadistic behaviour and depravity had the underlying malice and clearly were intended to hurt. The Respondent no doubt had no interest in the marriage or in the welfare or happiness of the Petitioner. He showed no respect to the Petitioner whom he physically assaulted repeatedly. His cruel acts caused serious apprehension to the Petitioner regarding her health. No one can be expected to put up with such acts of cruelty. The Respondent’s conduct was unjustified. It threatened to harm the Petitioner’s health. There is no evidence that the Respondent was mentally ill and one can only conclude that all along he intended the natural and probable consequences of his actions, namely to hurt the Petitioner. It is my finding that the conduct of the Respondent amounts to cruelty and constitutes a ground for dissolving the marriage. No spouse can be expected to stay in such abusive relationship. It is my finding that the Respondent is guilty of cruelty. Accordingly, I pronounce a decree of divorce and hereby dissolve the marriage between Petitioner and the Respondent on the ground of cruelty on the part of the Respondent. In the first instance, a decree nisi shall issue forthwith and subject to the provisions of section 15 of the Matrimonial Causes Act, Cap 152, the decree nisi shall be made absolute after theexpiry of three months after this pronouncement. It is so ordered. There shall be no order as to costs. Dated at Milimani Law Courts, Nairobi, this 5th day of July 2012. G.B.M. KARIUKI, SC JUDGE COUNSEL APPEARING Mr. P. Wachira appearing for Patrick Odoyo of Kipkenda & Co. ,Advocates for the Petitioner Mr. Kugwa – Court Clerk http://www.kenyalaw.org - Page 3/4