1966 Feb. 2, Mar. 12, 28 CHRVSSO JAMES LAWRENCE [VASSMJADUS, J.] CHRYSSO JAMES L A W R E N C E D U N N E , (OTHERWISE CHRYSSO EVANGELOU), Petitioner, DUNNE (OTHERWISE CHRYSSO EvANGr:i.oui /». v. JAMES L A W R E N C E D U N N E , Respondent. JAMES LAWRENCE DUNNE {Matrimonial petition No. 10/65). Matrimonial Causes—Dissolution of marriage—Jurisdiction—> Cruelty—Petitioner wife, a Greek Cypriot and a member of the Greek Orthodox Church of Cyprus—Respondent husband an Englishman, member of the Catholic Church—Couple married at the District Officers Office, Nicosia, on October 21, 1964, under the Civil Marriage Law, Cap. 279—A religious marriage followed in a Greek Orthodox Church, a few days later Respondent's domicile unknown—Jurisdiction assumed under section 18 ( I ) (b) of the Matrimonial Causes Act. 1950 (English). Matrimonial Causes—Divorce- Cruelty—Deception of wife by husband Husband's sexual perversion—Beating and molestation of wife- -Desertion by husband—Husband's conduct amounting to cruelty. In this wife's petition lor divorce on the ground of cruelty two issues arose for consideration. The first one being the question of jurisdiction and" the second the question o f cruelty. The petitioner wife is a Greek Cypriot and a member of the Greek Orthodox Church ; and the respondent presented himself as an Englishman, and a member of the Roman Catholic Church. No evidence was adduced cither as to the husband's domicile o f origin or that of choice. The couple got married at the District Officer's Office Nicosia, on October 21, 1964, under the Civil Marriage Law Cap. 279; and achurch marriage followed in a Greek-Orthodox Church, a few days later. On the question of cruelty the Court heard the evidence of the petitioner who certified that the respondent attemp164 ted carnal knowledge o f the wife against the order o f nature : and when she declined and resisted the husband used force. She w o u l d not give in and in the struggle which followed he slapped her face and struck her w i t h his fist o n the head. Scenes o f similar nature occurred on subsequent occasions when respondent's perverted sexual tendencies t o o k another form. He tried to gel the petitioner to lick his genital organ : and when she declined and resisted he beat her repeatedly w i t h hand and fist. sions, was c o r r o b o r a t e d by that o l ' her mother and by a neigh bour. The Court f o u n d that the evidence o f the wife was a m p l j corroborated by the other evidence and that it c o u l d safely In g r a n t i n g the p e t i t i o n , the C o u r t : Held, on the question of jurisdiction . I think that the case falls w i t h i n the provisions o f section I 8 { l ) ( b ) o\~ the M a t r i m o n i a l Causes A c t . 1950. which cons titute the law governing the matter. (Rayden on 9th Edition p. I38N, and paragraph 5 at p. 29). Divorce. Following other cases where the question o f j u r i s d e t i o n arose, the lasi οι which is Amlroullu Knight v. Douglas Knight. ( M a t r i m o n i a l Pe t i t i o n 10/63) decided in this C o m ι on the 26.2.1966 (tinrepot ted), I have no difficulty in holding that the Court has j u r i s d i c t i o n to entertain the petition in hand. I a m , moreover, f o r t i f i e d i n this \iew by the decision o f Joscphidcs, J., i n application N o . 3/64 between the same parlies, where, o n the I 5 l h Octo ber. 1965, lie granted leave to the petitioner, under section 2
(1)o f the A c t , to file this petition before the expiration o f three years f r o m the date o f the marriage (
(1965)1 C.L.R. p. 344). Held, as Ιό the question of cruelty : ( I ) A s to the second issue, that o f cruelly, I am indebted to counsel for referring me to Carpenter v. Carpenter, [1955] 2 A l l E.R. p. 449, relying u p o n which counsel submitted that the combined effect o f respondent's conduct in t h s case, amounts to cruelty, sufficient to establish the g r o u n d in section l ( l ) ( c ) o f the M a t r i m o n i a l Causes A c t , 1950, u p o n which the petitioner seeks CHRYSSO JAMIS LAWRFNCI" DUNNE (OTHERWISE CHRYSSO F.VANGπ ου) η. J \MES L A W R F N T F The petitioners evidence w i t h regard to one o f such occa act on it. 1966 Feb. 2, Mar. 12, 28 dissolution o f the marriage. deed, considerable matter in c o m m o n case and the case η hand. 165 *-*%J> There between is. i n Carpenter's DUNNI" 1966 F e b . 2, Mar. 12, 28 CHRYSSO JAME.S LAWRI'NCE DUNNE (Orm RVVISI: CHRYSSO FVANtil ι o u )
(2)During the ten years which have e'apsed since Carpen ter's case, cruelty in matrimonial relations as a ground for divorce, under section l(l)(c) of the 1950 Act, was considered and discussed in a number of cases, in the highest jurisdiction in England. I had occasion to refer to some of them recently in Levonian v. Levonian (
(1965)1C.L.R. 339) where there is a quotation from the speech of Lord Pearch in Collins v. Collins [1964]A.C. p.644 which, I shall repeat here with all due respect: i>. J A M I S L A W K H W I. DUNNE " It is impossible to give a comprehensive definition of cruelty, but when reprehensive conduct causes injury to health, or apprehension of it, it is, I think cruelty, if a reasonable person, after taking due account of the temperament and all the other particular circums tances, would consider that the conduct complained of is such that this spouse should not be called on to endure it ". ([1965] 2 W.L.R. 32, at p. 36).' In the present case, after taking due account of all circums tances as presented by the evidence, I have no hesitation in reaching the conclusion that the conduct of the husband since the celebration of the marriage, creates apprehension of injury to the health of the wife, if she is called on to endure such con duct in matrimonial vinculum with such a husband. I, there fore. hold that she is entitled to the remedy sought by the petition. There will be a decree nisi, with costs. Decree nisi on the ground of cruelty granted, with costs. Cases referred to Androulla Knight v. Douglas Knight; Matrimonial Petition No. 10/63 decided on the 26.2.66, unreported; Carpenter v. Carpenter [1955] 2 All E.R. 449; Levonian v. Levonian
(1965)I C.L.R. p. 339; Collins v. Collins [1964] A.C. 644; [1965] 2 W.L.R. 32, p.
- Matrimonial Petition. Petition for dissolution of marriage because of the husband's cruelty. L. Clerkics, for the-petitioner. Respondent not appearing. Duly served. Cur. adv. vult. 166 The following judgment was delivered by : VASSILIADIS. J. : Short and shocking as the facts in this case may be, they present certain difficulties on the legal aspect o f the ptoceedings. The first arises on the question of jiiiisdicliou ; and the second on the gtound o\' euiclly, upon which the petitioning wife seeks dissolution o f the mar riage. The petitioner has lo overcome them both. O n the merits iheie is ample substance in this petition which altraets every possible sympathy lor this victim o\' such frivolity on the part o f her parents, and such callousness on the pari of Ihe person who became her husband. The petitioner, a \ o u n g girl o f sixteen >ears o f age, the daughter o f a house painter with eight children, was gi\cn in marriage lo a stranger o f the age of nineteen who presented himself as a medical student, but was in fact an army deserter The lack o f sense o f responsibility on the part o f the famih o f this girl was as shocking as the shameful lack o f decency on the pail o f the individual who married her. Theie was, a civil mairiage al the Commissioner's Office, Nicosia, on Oetobci 2 1 , 1964 ; and a church marriage in ,i Greek-Orthodox church, a few days later. The petitioner and her family are Cypriots, Gicek-Orthodox by religion , the respondent presented himself as an Englishman, member o f the Roman Catholic Church. The marriage was the icsiill o f false pretences on Ihe part o f the respondent and a fnend o f his (now a person wanted by the Police for bigamy and other crimes) who iniioduccd the respondent to petitioner's family ; but the validity o f the marriage is not in issue in this proceeding. Nor, apparently, the responsibility o f the Mar riage Officer has, as yet, been the subject o f the enquiry which the facts o f the ease seem l o call for. 1 have no evidence before me as to the husband's domicile ; either that οΐ origin, or that o? choice, i f any. The couple, according l o the evidence, made no plans as to thcit m a t r i monial home ;' nor as lo their residence. In fact they hardly had a common language between them ; and do not seem to have given much thought l o their future. After their marriage, the parlies lived together for about Ihrec weeks in the petitioner's parental home, when the res pondent disappeared, leaving a note to his wife which is before me as exhibit
- I shall give il here verbatim as il thiows light on some o f the background o f this case ; it reads : 167 1<)66 Feb. 2, Mar. 12, 28 (.llfUSsn J \ \ u \ 1 A'VRI V I 1)lJ\M (OrnEitwisi CHRYSSO HVAMJI IOC) P. I WHS L A W K F N i ι DUNNF Feb. 2, Mar. 12, 28 HRvsso JAMKS I.AWRI:N<I. " Dear Chrysso, [ am sorry our marriage did not work out because I have been cruel to you and beat you several times. 1 could not help it. DUNNI-: (Omutwisi: Perhaps it is due to the difference o f our mentality. CHRYSSO EivANirci.uu) "· I could nol understand what you were saying most o f the time. MIS L A W κUNCI: L)IJNNi; I decided that ihe only way for us is lo live apart. I am going to the R.A.F. t o m o r r o w and i may not see you again. G o o d luck. James Lawrence D u n n e 1 ' . In fact the respondent disappeared ; he could not be traced by the Police, who eventually discovered that he was an A r m y deserter ; and thai he had absconded the Island by air for L o n d o n , soon after his disappearance f r o m petitioner's home. He has nol been actually traced ever since. Petitioner's story o f her experiences with the respondent d u r i n g the short period between their marriage and respon dent's desertion, is appalling. After taking her virginity in a normal marital intercourse on the first night o f their marriage, the respondent attempted carnal knowledge o f the wife against the order of nature. She declined and resisted. He used force. She would not give in. A n d in that struggle he slapped her face and struck her with his fist on the head. On subsequent occasions, scenes o f similar nature occurred. Respondent's perverted sexual tendencies took another f o r m . He tried lo get the petitioner to lick his geni tal organ ; and when she declined and resisted, he beat her repeatedly with hand and fist. O n o i .* o f such occasions, petitioner's mother, having heard the noise o f a f i g h l in the parties' bedroom, went in together w t ' h another woman, and saw the petitioner in tears with a bleeding mouth f r o m her husband's beating. She look her dau ;hler away f r o m the r o o m ; and having no com mon language w i t h her son-in-law, she called in an inter preter the following day, and asked f o r an explanation. This interpreter was a neighbour who spoke English ; and who gave evidence in this case t o the effect that the respondent 168 admitted beating and molesting the petitioner ; and that, offering a full apology, promised lhal he would not d o such things again. The evidence is that the respondent did not keep his pro mise for more than a day or two, after which he indulged in similar behaviour. The wife's evidence is that scenes of this nature occurred on five or six occasions before respon dent's departure, ending always with the use of violence on his part against the wife, who was physically a much weaker person. The evidence of the wife is amply corroborated by other evidence ; and, in any ease, is such that I feel that I can safely act on il. 1 find accordingly. On this evidence I have to decide the iwo main issues aris ing in this case : the question of jurisdiction; and that of cruelty As lo ihe first, I think that the ease falls wilhin the provi sions of section 18 ( l ) ( b ) of the Matrimonial Causes Act, 1950, which constitute the law governing the matter. (Rayden on Divorce, 9th Edition p. 1388, and paragraph 5 at p. 29). hollowing other cases where the question of jurisdic tion arose, the last of which is Androulla Knight v. Douglas Knight (Matrimonial Petition 10/63) decided in this Court on the 26.2.1966*, I have no difficulty in holding that the Court has jurisdiction to entertain the petition in hand. I am, moreover, fortified in (his view by the decision of Joscphides, J. in application No. 3/64 between Ihe same parlies, where, on the I5lh October, 1965, he granted leave to the petitioner, under section 2
(1)of the Act, lo file this petition before the expiration o\' three years from the dale of the marriage (
(1965)1 C.L.R. 344). As to the second issue, that of cruelty, I am indebted lo counsel for referring me to Carpenter v. Carpenter, [1955] 2 All E.R. p. 449, relying upon which, counsel submitted that the combined effect of respondent's conduct in this case, amounts lo cruelty, sufficient lo establish the ground in sec tion 1
(1)(c) of the Matrimonial Causes Act, 1950, upon which the petitioner seeks dissolution of the marriage. There is, indeed, considerable matter in common between Carpen ter's case and the case in hand. Not reported- 169 Feb. 2, Mar. 12, 28 CHRYSSO JAMIS LAWRENCE DUNNF (OTHfRU ISE CHRYSSO· EvANGn_out υ. JAMES LAWRENC DUSJNF 1966 ' '_' CMRVSSO JAMLS 1 Λ \ \ « | ,Μ< 1 1">Ι ΝΙΝΙ (OlHMUVIM OIHYSSO ΐ'ΛΛΜ.ιιοιη " D u r i n g the ten years which have elapsed since Carpenter's case, cruelty in matrimonial relations as a ground f o r divorce under section 1
(1)(c) o f ihe 1950 A c t , was considered and discussed in a number o f cases, in the highest jurisdiction in England. I had occasion to refer to some o f them recently in Levonian v. Levonian
(1965)1 C.L.R., 339, where there is a q u o t a t i o n f r o m the speech o f Lord Pearce in Gollt'ns v. Gol/ins ( H . L . ( E ) (1964], A.C. p. 644) which, I shall repeat here with all due respect : J A M I S 1AU'RI N< I. I^'NM '* It is impossible lo give a comprehensive definition o f cruelly, but when reprehensive conduct causes injury to health, orapprehension o f it, it is, I think cruelty, i f a reasonable person, after taking due account of the temperament and all (he other particular circumstances, would consider that the conduct complained o f is such, that this spouse should nol be called on l o endure it " ([1965] 2 W.L.R. p. 32 at p.36). In ihe present case, after taking due account o f all circum stances as presented by the evidence, 1 have no hesitation in reaching ihe conclusion thai the conduct o f the husband since the celebration of the marriage, creates apprehension o f i n j u r y 10 the health o f Ihe wife, if she is called on lo endure such conduct in matrimonial vinculum with such a husband. I, therefore, hold that she is entitled l o the remedy sought by Ihe pel 11ion. rheie will be a decree nisi, with costs. Decree nisi on the ground of cruelty granted, with costs. 17(1