The duty of the Court to issue an attachment for non-obedience of a decree for restitution of conjugal rights is the same since the Divorce Acts as it was before.
It is not a sufficient compliance by a husband with a decree for restitution of conjugal rights that he has provided his wife with a suitable establishment and sufficient income.
It is the duty of married persons to live together and that this duty should be enforced by the Court unless it could be shown that the complaining party had been guilty of some matrimonial offence for which a judgment authorising living apart might have been obtained by the other.
Sir James Hannen, President cited the words of Blackstone: ‘The suit for restitution of conjugal rights is brought whenever either the husband or wife is guilty of the injury of subtraction or lives separate from the other without any sufficient reason, in which case they will be compelled to come together again, if either party be weak enough to desire it, contrary to the inclination of the other.’
Judges:
Sir James Hannen, President
Citations:
[1883] UKLawRpPro 57, 1883-1884) LR 9 PD 52, (1883) 9 PD 52
Statutes:
Matrimonial Causes Act 1857 22
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Lloyds Bank plc v Rosset CA 13-May-1988
Claim by a wife that she has a beneficial interest in a house registered in the sole name of her husband and that her interest has priority over the rights of a bank under a legal charge executed without her knowledge. The case raises a point of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Family
Updated: 30 January 2022; Ref: scu.655160
