(1981)1981 October 3 [A. Loizou, J.] LEACH ERZSEBET MOUZOURIS, Petitioner, v. MICHALAKIS N. MOUZOURIS, Respondent, and SOPHIA PIOTROWSKA, Co-respondent. (Matrimonial Petition No. 8/75). Matrimonal Causes—Divorce—Adultery—Burden of proof—Corroboration—Proof of co-habitation—Excludes necessity of proof of particular facts—Decreenisi granted. This was a wife's petition for divorce on the ground of the husband's adultery with the co-respondent. The parties were 5 married in 1952 but the respondent left the conjugal home in
- The petitioner and another witness testified that the respondent was living with the co-respondent in the same flat sharing the same bedroom and living together with her as husband and wife making nosecret of their adulterous relationship 10 Held, that proof of generalcohabitation excludesthe necessity ofproof ofpariicularfacts toestablishadultery;that1herequired corroboraticn of ihe evidence of the petitioner is to be found in the testimony of her witness and the strong surrounding circumstances of the case; that the evidence of the petitioner, 15 as corroborated by that of her witness has clearly established the alleged adultery; that the burden of proof, which is cast on the person alleging adultery, has been discharged by the petitioner; that this Court is satisfied beyond all reasonable doubl about the adulterous relationship of the respondent 20 with theco-respondent; that,therefoie,thecaseof the petitioner has been proved; and that accordingly a decree nisi will be granted. Decree nisigranted. 370 1 C.L.R. Mouzoaris v. Piotrowslta Matrimonial Petition. Wife's petition for dissolution of marriage because of the husband's adultery. /. Avraamides, for the petitioner. 5 S. KittiSy for the respondent. Co-respondent absent. Duly served. A. Loizou J. read the following judgment. By the present petition the petitioner-wife prays for the dissolution of her marriage with the respondent on the ground of adultery 10 with the person named in the petition. The latter although duly served did not enter an appearance. The respondent was represented bycounsel who did not, however, contest bycrossexamination, the evidence adduced on behalf of the petitioner. The parties to these proceedings were, on the 28th April 15 1952, married at the Commissioner's Office, Famagusta, under the provisions of the Marriage Law, Cap.
- After the said marriage the petitioner and the respondent lived together at variousaddressesandfinallyat Livadhia streetNo. 7, Famagusta. 20 In 1973,therespondent left the conjugal home and went and livedwiththeco-respondent at aflatatAyiosMemnon quarter, Famagusta. When the north coast of Cyprus was invaded bythe Turkish forces on the 20th July 1974,the brother of the respondent andhiswife,Photoulla Mouzouri andtheir children, 25 left theirhomenear theTurkish quarter of thetownon account of the incidents taking place there and for safety reasons went and lived with the respondent and co-respondent at the flat theyoccupiedinAyiosMemnon. Photoulla Mouzouri,(P.W.2) whogaveevidencefor thepetitionertestified that therespondent 30 and the co-respondent were sharing a bed-room and living together ashusband and wife making no secret to them of their adulterous relationship. In the middle of August, thiswitness and her family and the respondent and co-respondent, fled from Famagusta town 35 on seeing the approaching Turkish forces. She moved to Nicosia with her family where at their flat they returned the hospitality to the respondent and co-respondent, who had in the meantime spent some time at Platres. This witness further testified that once more the respondent and co-respon40 dentwerelivingtogether ashusband andwife. Therespondent 371 A. Loizou J. Mouzoaris τ. Piotrowska
(1981)and co-respondentthenmoved to a flat of theirown at Onasagorou street No. 31,Nicosia. As stated in RaidenonDivorce 8thedition,para. 106,p. 147 under the heading, "Direct evidence not requisite*': "To succeed on such an issue it is not necessary to prove 5 the directfact, oreven an actof adultery in timeandplace; or even necessarily thenameof theperson with whom the respondent is alleged to have committed adultery; for if it were, in very few cases would that proof be attainable; it is rarely indeed that parties are surprised in the direct 10 act of adultery, and such evidence is looked at carefully; in nearly every case thefact is inferred from circumstances whichlead toit,by fair inference,asanecessary conclusion; and, unless this were so held, noprotectionwhatever could be given to marital rights. The Court must be satisfied 15 that there was something more than opportunity before it will affix guilt; evidence of a guilty inclination or passion is needed in addition. But proof of general cohabitation excludes the necessity of proof of particular facts to establish adultery. The conjunction of strong 20 inclination with evidence of opportunity affords strong primafacie evidence ofadultery,butitisnotanirrebuttable presumption". In the present case theevidence of thepetitioner,ascorrobo rated by that of her witness has clearly established the alleged 25 adultery to my satisfaction. The burden of proof, which is cast on the person allegingadultery has been discharged by her and I am satisfied beyond all teasonable doubt about the adulte rous relationship of the respondent with the co-respondent throughout those years. The required corroboration of the 30 evidence of the petitioner is to be found in the testimony of her witness and the strong surrounding circumstances of the case. I accordingly find that the case for the petitioner has been proved, that is to say, that the respondentcommitted adultery 35 with the co-respondentand a decree of divorce nisi is granted accordingly on thatground. Therewill be, however, no order as to costs as none have been claimed. Decree nisi granted. No orderas to costs. 40 372