clr/1962/1962_1_308.pdf

(2)(b)— The Courts ofJustice Law, Cap 8 sections 20(b) and 33

(2)—The Matrimonial Causes Act, 1950, section 1

(1)(c) The husband was an Armenian belonging t o t h e A r m e n i a n C h u r c h and thewife aGreek belonging t o t h e G r e e k - O r t h o d o x Church They were b o t h born in Cyprus and w e r e married at t h e Commissioner's Office, Limassol, on t h e l l t h O c t o b e r 1954, under t h e provisions of t h e Marriage Law, Cap 279 There was no church celebration of t h e marriage. The husband deserted t h e matrimonial home o n 1st December, I960 D u n n g the t i m e they lived t o g e t h e r t h e husband i l l - t r e a t e d his wife by beating her and injuriously affecting her health The High C o u r t found that cruelty was proved and granted a decree of divorce nisi t o be made absolute w i t h i n 3 months Held (I) Following thedecisions in Herta lasonos ν lasonos, Phidias Chnstodoulou ν Katerma Chnstodoulou, Athma Darmo- ηιη ν Michael Darmanm and o t h e r cases recently decided i n this C o u r t , t o which I need not specifically refer, I hold that the petitioner is e n t i t l e d t o have recourse t o t h e Matrimonial Jurisdiction of t h e C o u r t , (conferred by section 19 of t h e 308 Courrs of Justice Law, I960) for the cause, constituting the subject matter of this petition

(2)The Law applicable in such cases is "the law relating to matrimonial causes for the time being administered by the High Court of Justice in England", as provided in section.33

(2)of the Courts of Justice Law. 1951. (Cap.8). and section 19(b) and 29

(2)(b) of the Courts of Justice Law. I960, (No. Μ of I960), at present the Matrimonial Causes Act, 1950. as now in force. ' - '•

(3)The intention behind the conduct complained of (as proved by direct evidence or inferred from the surrounding circumstances), may, I think, be considered together with the effect of such conduct on the life or health of the party alleging cruelty, in deciding the question whether the circumstances ofithe particular case, entitle such party to a decree for disso­ lution on the ground of cruelty.

(4)Isolated acts of physical violence by one spouse against the other, which in themselves may not besufficient to support' a petition, may amount to 'legal cruelty' when considered in" the background of the matrimonial history· of the parties, in the circumstances of a particular case, and I hold that they do so in this case. , •

(5)I, therefore, come to the conclusion that the petitioner herein, is entitled to a decree nisi on the ground of cruelty, under section t(l)(c) of the Matrimonial Causes Act : and I grant her that remedy, with costs.

(6)Application for a decree absolute may be made after three months from to-day. Other consequential Orders may be applied for, as provided by the Rules. The petitioner to cause an office-copy of the decree nisi, to be served on the respondent within fourteen days from to-day. Decree nisi of dissolution of marriage granted. Cases refei red to : Heria lasonos v. lasonos.Matrimonial Petition No. 14/61 de­ cided on 2.3.62, unreported : Phidias Chr<stodoulou v. Katerina Chnstodoulou reported in this Volume on p. 68, ante; 309 1962 Dec. 1 ANOELIKI BASTADJIAN V. KRIKOR BASTAIUIAN *^ 2 — Atfuno Darmanin v. Michael Darmonm, r e p o r t e d in this V o l u m e . at ρ 264,ante . ANt.ltlKl BASTAUMAN homholdv. Fromhold

(1952)I T.L.R. 1522. p. 1525: HAM mit'ls Elpfiinstone ν Etphmstone

(1962)Ϊ W . L R. 122, Williams v. Williams (I962) 3 W.L.R. 977.p.

1. MiHrimoniiil Petition. , Petition by wife f o r dissolution o f her marriage o nthe υround o f cruelly. H. Maounis f o r the Petitioner. Respondent absent duly served. VASSIUADES, J. : This isa wife's petition for dissolution o f marriage, on grounds o f cruelly. , The parlies were married at the Commissioner's Ollice, Limassol, on the l l t h October, 1954, under the provisions o f the Marriage Law, Cap.
2. They were both residents o f Limassol at the time ; the respondent working as a clerk in the employment o f the M i l i t a r y Authorities in that area,and the petitioner living w i t h her parents i n the t o w n . Both were born in Cyprus ; the husband an A r m e n i a n belonging to the Armenian Church, and the wife a Greek, belonging to the Greek-Orthodox Church. There was no church celebration o f the marriage in either the Greek-Orthodox or the Armenian Church ; o r other Church f o r that matter. A f t e r the marriage, theparties lived as husband and wife, at Limassol, for about six years, until the 1st o f December, I960, when the respondent left the matrimonial home, and went to live with his parents, w h o also reside at Limassol. The parlies have been living in separation ever since. D u r i n g the six years o f co-habitation, the parties had two children : a boy, born on 28.2.58 ; and a girl, born on 4.8.
3. They are, both, now with their mother. The cruelly complained of,is theuse o\'physical violence, (ill-treatment and beating) bythehusband, during the quarrels between the parties, consequent upon respondent's habit of 310 b frequenting gambling places where, according to thewife, he spends most ofhis leisure time,neglecting his family ; and where hefrequently loses considerable part of hispay,she .said, upon which the family depend for their living. This habit ofthe respondent to frequent gambling places and then i'l-trcat and often beat his wife inthe quarrels which,follow, has been going on, according tothe wife's evidence, almost ever since the parties were married. She complains that this sort of treatment onthepart of her husband has undermined her health in the past ; and may injuriously affect her health infuture. Having seen the petitioner in the box, Ican wellunderstand her apprehensions. Attempts to get theparties together again, after their separation in December, I960, failed. The respondent defini­ tely declined to consider reconciliation ; heonly agreed to pay £12 permonth towards the maintenance of his family, which hehasbeen doing for some time now. I have no evidence before meastothese payments, ortheir adequacy ; and 1make no finding thereon,inthis judgment. In support of her allegations for cruelty and violent treatment, the petitioner gave evidence onoath ; and called one of her friends tocorroborate her. Ϊ have noreasonto doubt the substance of petitioner's evidence ; and Γ find accordingly. She wasrepeatedly assaulted by herhusband during domestic quarrels, when hestruck heronthehead with his fist causing bruises. Following thedicisions in Herta Jasonos v. Jasonox (Matr. Pet. 14/60) ; Phidias Christodoulouv. Katerina Chn­ stodoulou (Matr. Pet. 15/61) ; Athina Darmamn v. Michael Darmanin (Matr. Pet. 13/61); and other cases recently decid­ ed in this Court, to which Ineed not specifically refer, Ihold that the petitioner is entitled to have recourse to theMatrimo­ nial Jurisdiction of the Court, (conferred by sect. 19of the Courts of Justice Law, I960) for the cause constitutingthe subject matter of this petition. The-law applicablein-sudreases is-"thelaw-relaiing to matrimonial causes for thetime being administered by the High Court of Justice in England", as provided in sect.33

(2)of The Courts of Justice Law, 1953, (Cap.8), andsect. 19(b) ofThe Courts of Justice Law, I960, (No.14 of 1960) ; at present The Matrimonial Causes Act, 1950, as now in force. 311 1962 Doc. 1 ANGELIKI BASTADJIAN V. KRIKOR BASTADJIAN Vassiliades, J. IV62 Dec I ANOEI Ikl BASTADJIAN V. KBIKOR RASIAIUIAN Vjssiludt.^, J Lord Justice Singleton in Fromholdν I'lonihold

(1952)I T L R 1522 dealing wilh a cruelty case on appeal, is re­ ported atρ1525, tohave said : — " i h e third Lomplainl upon this appeal is(hat the Judge misdirected thejuiy on the issueofcruelty, leaving them with the impression that there must beinjury tohc.ilih even incases of physical injury The generally accepl cd definition ofcruelty issetout in Rayden on Divoitc (5th Ed p.80) . 'Legal cruelly may bedefined as conduct of sikh <i character as lo have caused danger to life, limb,oi health (bodily or mental),or asto giverise lo a reason­ able apprehension of such danger'. "The wife's complaints arc that she had been kicked on at leasl two occasions, sothat there were bruises on her legs or on her body , that she had been struck on the eye. so that she had a black eye , that she had been struck on a hand with a knife ina way which caused a woundor wounds on the hand, and if those complaint weie found by ajury tobetrue, Ishould not have thought that any one could doubt that they were within the definition ol ciuelty as known to the law" In Elphtnstoneν Efphms/one

(1962)3 W.L R 422 iso­ lated attacks with physical violence by thewife, were con­ sidered in thebackground of the pievious history of the matri­ monial life of the parties , and in that light were held to constitute, in the cneumslani.es of that marriage, cruelty entitling the husband to a decree nisi for dissolution, on that ground. In Williams v. Williams

(1962)3 W.L R. 977Donovan L.J. (at p.990) after referring tocruelty as aground for divorce under sect. I(l)(

1. c)of the Matrimonial Causes Act,1950, points to thedistinction between the subjective and the objective tests of cruelly ; the intention behind the conduit amounting to αuelty. and the effect o\'such conduct onιhe party seeking dissolution on thai giound Iam inclined to think that these distinct tests need notbe exclusively applied indealing with ihe question whether the cruelty contemplated insect. l(IXc) (supia) was, orwas not established ina particular case. The intention behindthe conduct complained of(as proved bydirect evidence orm- 312 ferred from the surrounding circumstances), may, I think, be considered together with the effect of such conduct on the life or health of the party alleging cruelty, in deciding the question whether the circumstances of the particular case, onlillcd such parly to ;i decree for dissolution on ihe giound o\' cruelly.' I lake the view Ihnl isolated acts of physical violence by one spouse against the other, which in themselves'may not be sufficient to support a petition, may amount to 'legal cruelty* when considered in the background of the matrimonial liisloiy of the parties, in the circumstances of a particular case. And I hold that they do so in this case. I, therefore, come to the conclusion that the petitioner herein is entitled to a decree nisi on the ground of cruelty, under sect. l(l)(
2. c)of the Matrimonial Causes Act ; and I grant her that remedy, with costs. Application for a decree absolute may be made after three months from to-day. Other consequential orders may be applied for, as provided by the rules. The petitioner to cause an office-copy of the decree nisi, to be served on the tespondent within fourteen days from today. "* '•·' "" Decree nisi of dissolution of marriage granted. - 313 rv* 2 | A N t i t - l Ir.i BAVI ADJU:·. v. KKIKOK DASIADJI \ N VasMii.iit^. '