In August, 1890, a wife presented a petition for a divorce upon the ground of adultery coupled with cruelty. The marriage had taken place in December, 1858; the only child of the marriage, a son, was born in 1866, and the parties separated by agreement in 1870. A separation deed was then executed by them, which contained the usual covenant by the husband that he would not molest the wife; and they had lived apart ever since. The wife never took any proceedings before the petition; the cruelty charged took place between 1861 and 1870, and the adultery charged was in 1889. No act of personal violence was alleged; and the cruelty charged against the husband was his conduct in living for many years with successive mistresses, and telling his wife of his infidelities and of his preference of other women to her. The suit was undefended ; and the witnesses gave evidence that the wife’s health was delicate, and that the husband’s conduct had to his knowledge impaired it. The only explanation given by the petitioner of her delay in taking proceedings was in effect that she did not wish to proceed until her son had grown up and she could ascertain his wishes.
Held: by Butt, J., that the husband’s conduct did not amount to legal cruelty, and that the wife was not entitled to a divorce.
On appeal,
Held: by the Court (Lindley, Lopes, and Kay, L.JJ.), that, even assuming
legal cruelty to have been proved against the husband, the wife’s delay of
twenty years in taking proceedings had not been sufficiently explained, and
was so unreasonable that the Court, in exercise of its discretion under the
Divorce and Matrimonial Causes Act, 1857, s. 31, ought to refuse to decree
dissolution of the marriage.
The judgment of Butt, J., affirmed.
This was a petition presented by the wife
(1891) P 189, [1891] UKLawRpPro 4
Commonlii
Divorce and Matrimonial Causes Act 1857, Divorce Court Amendment Act 1860
England and Wales
Family
Updated: 29 November 2021; Ref: scu.670116
