ι yf.<» poM r u l i n g . J.| M . i y 19 PHOTOU Λ SoTFRlOU IMiN P H O T O U A. SOTRRIOU T H E N PHOTOU PANAY1, Petitioner. I'm •I'll. Ι'ΛΚΧ'Ί 1' ANDREAS ANDKFAS Μ SON m,n, M . SOTER10U, Respondent. (Matrimonial Petition \'o. 8/63). Matrimonial Causes Juri.sditlion- Divorce Wife's undefended petition foi divanc on the giouitd of (ruelty- Pontes Creek Cvpriots and members of the Creek Orthodox Chinch Respon dent Inishand still domiciled in Cyprus—Supreme Court has /in isdu lion to entertain the suit Donu'cil of origin oi the Inis hand noi changed Matrimonial Causes Di\one Cruelly frequent healing oi wife • Respondent husband guilty of conduct amounting lo niuiiimoniai nueli\ Pomicil of origin See above "the parlies lo the marriage, m this petition, who .ire Greek Cypriote and members oi' the Greek Orthodox ( l u n c h were married on the 20th September. 1962. in the RI-HMCI Office of the DistiieL of St. Pancras in the Metropolitan Borough of St. Pancias in London, England. The wife petitioner in this undefended petition foi divoree, on the ground of cruelly, complained of the following acts of cruelty : That the respondent husband started beating Κ ι from the lust two or thiec days of their marriage, in September. 1962 and thai he used to beat her frequently uni.l the 30th December, 1962, when eventually she left the Matrimonial horn:. He used lo pull her by Ihe hair and seize hei by the throa lo strangle her and. according to her vci'M^n she lost consciousness on two or thiee occasions. The evidence o f lite ι "ifc was supported and corroborated by allulavit evi dence ot two witnesses. Further the family ductor who cxamiucu her on two oi three occasions since hei K'lurn to Cypius- u, January, l%3, staled that she suffered Horn inso mnia. dizziness, headaches and a feelingof sickness, all ι insistent with anxietv neurosis due lo worries and menial anxietv. 200 The Coin ι in granting a decree nisi on the ground of cruelly : Held, as lo the question i>( jurisdiction :
(1)On the evidence Η appears that the husband was born in Cyprus (Lefkoniko village) and thai he left for England aboul six years prior to the marriage. He worked there for six yea is and ihcn he came to Cyprus m April, 1962 and he became engaged u> the petitioner and he began working at I.efkoniko by himself. He worked for two or lliree months and then left again to go back lo England. Eventually the petitioner joined him there where they were married in the Civil Registry to\i the 20th September. 1962. The husband is still in England though his address is unknown. No per sonal service could be effected on him and the C ourt had lo ordei substituted seivice. On this evidence I was satis fied thai' Ihe husband is domiciled in Cyprus, that is. that his original domicil was Cyprus and that he has not changed his d o n n u l .
(2)(.onsequeiilly Ihis Court has jurisdiction lo hear and determine the present petition. Held, on the issue of <ruelty " On Ihe evidence 1 am satisfied thai ihe husband has been guilty of conduct which would give rise to a reasonable ap prehension of danger to the wife's life and bodily and mental health and I. therefore, find Ihe charge of cruelty proved : see Russell v. Russell, [1897] A.C. 3 9 5 . 4 6 7 ; and Collins v. • Collins M9fi4| A.C. 644 (H.I .) ; Levonian v. Levonian
(1965)I C . L . R . ' 3 3 9 and Dunne v. Dunne (reported in this Part at 'ρ \M ante) by Vassiliades J. IJecrce ηisi on the ground of cruelty granted uith no order as to costs. Cases referred to-: Rnsse/J \. 'Russell [iX97| A.C. 395, 467 ; Collins v. Col/ins U % 4 | A.C. (»44 ( H . L . ) ; ' tetania» ν ' Levonian
(1965)I C.L.R. 339; Dunne v. Dunne (Reported in this volume at p, 164 ante). 201 1966 May 19 . I96(i May 19 PHOTOU A. SOTKRIOIJ THEN Matrimonial Petition. Petition by wife for dissolution of marriage on the ground of cruelty. C'ltr. Mi/sides, for the petitioner. PHOTOU P A N A V I o. ANDREAS M. SOTERIOU Respondent not appearing. Duly served. The following judgment was delivered by: JOSUPHIDHS, J.: This is an undefended wife's petition for divorce on the ground of cruelty. The parties, who are Greek Cypriots and members of the Greek Orthodox Church, were married on the 20th September, 1962, in the Register Office of the District of St. Pancras in the Metropolitan Borough of St. Pancras in London, England. The respondent husband, who is described in the marriage certificate as a hairdresser, was then aged 22 and the petitionerwife wasaged
- There was no religious marriage and there is no issue, First, as to the question of jurisdiction: On the evidence il appears thai ihe husband was born in Lefkoniko and that he left for England about six years prior to the marriage. He worked therefor about six years and then he came to Cyprus in April 1962 and he became engaged to ihe petitioner and he began working at Lefkoniko by himself. He worked for 2 or 3 months in the village and then left again to go back to England. Eventually the petitioner joined him there where, as already slated, they were married in the Civil Registry on the. 20th September,
- The husband is still in England though his address is unknown. No personal service could be effected on him and the Court had to order substituted service. On this evidence I am satisfied that the husband is domiciled in Cyprus, that is, that his original domicil was Cyprus and that hehas notchanged hisdomicil.Consequently, thisCourt has jurisdiction to hear and determine the present petition. As regards Ihe ground of cruelty, on the evidence adduced I find ihe fads as follows : The parties were engaged to be married >n the 22nd April, 1962 and subsequently the husband left "or U.K. where he was joined by the wife on the IHIi September,
- After their marriage in September of thai yea" they lived together as husband and wife at 59, liclniont Sir cl, London, NW.
- The husband's sister lived in the second floor of that house. Apparently for some reason, which ts not quite clear to the Court, the husband started beating the wife from Ihe first two or three days of their mar202 riagc. The wife gave it as the reason that while the husband was in Cyprus in 1962 he was beaten up by the police and bound over as a result of the complaint of the wife's father to the police that the husband had hit her. The husband used to beat frequently the wife and this continued until the 30th December, 1962 when, eventually the wife left the matrimonial home. She was taken away by the husband's sister to a relative's house from where she returned to Cyprus on the 5th January, 1963, to her lather's home The husband used to pull her by the hair and seize her by the throat to strangle her and, according lo her version, she lost consciousness on two or three occasions. This evidence of the wife is supported and corroborated by the affidavit evidence of Nitsa Loui, who is related to her by marriage, and Nilsa's husband, loannis Loui. They are both residing in London. Their evidence is to the effect that when they visiled the wife in ihe month of October 1962 they saw wounds, bruises and injuries on the face of the wife and when they asked her, in the presence of the husband, as to the cause she replied in the husband's presence that these were due to his frequent beating-up and ill-treatment. These two witnesses further slated that on the 30th December, 1962 the husband's sister, Christina Klatz, took the petitioner to their house and requested them lo give her refuge until she obtained her return ticketto Cyprus. On that occasion these two witnesses saw again injuries on the face and neck of the wife. The family doctor, who examined the wife on two or three occasions since her return to Cyprus in January, 1963, slated that she suffered from insomnia, dizziness, headaches and a feeling of sickness, all consistent with anxiety neurosis due to worries and mental anxiety. On this evidence I am satisfied that the husband has been guilty of conduct which would give rise to a reasonable apprehension of danger to the wife's life and bodily and mental health and I,therefore, find the charge of cruelty proved: see Russell v. Russell [1897] A.C. 395, 467; and Gollms v. Gollins [1964] A.C. 644(H.L.); Levonian v. Levonian
(1965)1C.L.R. 339 and Dunne v. Dunne (reported in this Vol. at p. 164 ante) by Vassiliades, J. Decree nisi granted. No costs claimed. No order as to costs. Decree nisi on thegroundof cruelty granted with no order as to costs. 203 1966 May 19 PHOTOU A. SOTERIOU THEN PHOTOU PANAYI o. ANDREAS M. SOTERIOU