Frederick Maud v Alice Maud [1919] HCA 2

HPORTS OF CASES

DETERMINED IN THE

HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

1918-1919.

{HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA.)

FREDERICK MAUD . x ' x P . APPELLANT; PETITIONER, AND ALICE MAUD : : ' x . RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT,

ON APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA.

Husband and Wife—Divorce—Desertion—Refusal of sexual intercourse—Marriage 1 ©. oy A

Act 1915 (Viet.) (No. 2691), sec. 122. . aie The persistent refusal of sexual intercourse is not by itself desertion Sa within the meaning of sec. 122 (a) of the Marriage Act 1915 (Vict.), which ~ ae: seg entitles a married person to a divorce on the ground of wilful desertion without "/7¢h 12. just cause or excuse for three years and upwards. Tota; Higgins and Gavan Duffy JJ.

Decision of the Supreme Court of Victoria (Hood J.) affirmed.

Apprat from the Supreme Court of Victoria. °

By petition in the Supreme Court Frederick Maud sought a dissolution of his marriage with Alice Maud on the ground that without just cause or excuse she had wilfully deserted him and without any such cause or excuse had left him continuously so

deserted during three years and upwards.

H.C. or A.

1919. wn Maup

HIGH COURT (1919.

Tt appeared that the parties, who were married on 12th Jum 1901, lived together in the same house from that time until a fort- night after the service of the petition. During the whole of that

time the respondent persistently refused to allow the petitioner to have sexual intercourse with her, although until about four years before the petition they occupied the same bed, after which time the respondent slept in the kitchen. The respondent always perform the ordinary household duties and did some work in the garden, Until about six months before the petition the parties had their meals together, and after that time the petitioner prepared his own | meals. They spoke to one another until about a fortnight after the petition was served. The petition was heard by Hood J., and there was no appearance for the respondent. The learned Judge held that the mere fact that the respondent persistently refused to allo the petitioner to have sexual intercourse with her was not desertion, and that there was no evidence which showed that by that conduct the respondent intended to break off matrimonial relations with the petitioner. He therefore dismissed the petition.