Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

1. These are two cross-petitions for divorce, which by the consent of the parties were heard together.

2. The first petition presented by the wife, Florence Amelia Thompson, against her husband, George Sprott Thompson, claims a divorce on the ground of incestuous adultery by the husband. In answer to that petition, the husband denies the incestuous adultery, and charges his wife with adultery (the same acts which form the subject of the second petition), and the answer to the husband's petition is a denial by the wife, and the acts of which she complains in her own petition. Therefore the facts in the two petitions are the same, the position only being reversed; the husband being in the one case respondent and in the other case petitioner. The co-respondent to the husband's petition is Hugh Doherty, who is in business in Calcutta.

6. There is one child of the marriage, Sylvia Irene, born on the 23rd September 1905.

7. The wife charges in paragraph 4 of the petition "that on various occasions, in or about November or December 1908, the respondent at 13, Telkul Ghat Road, committed incestuous adultery with Ada Goodwin, the sister of the petitioner, who was then residing with your petitioner."

8. His Lordship then dealt with the evidence relating to the charge of incestuous adultery against the husband, and continued:

9. I have no doubt that the husband committed incestuous adultery with his sister-in-law.

10. The next question is, has that incestuous adultery been revived by the subsequent conduct of the husband? First of all, it is necessary to decide in what manner condoned adultery is revived, and I refer to the cases cited in the Court of Arches. First there is the case of Durant v. Durant (1825) 1 Hag. Eccl. Rep. 733. There the Dean of the Arches expressed his opinion thus: "Under these authorities (which he cited) I am inclined to hold: first, that cruelty will revive adultery, and, secondly, that less is necessary to revive than to found an original sentence." Then there is the case of Bramwell v. Bramwell (1831) 3 Hag. Eccl. Rep. 618. That was decided by a very distinguished Judge, Dr. Lushington. He followed the opinion that has been expressed by Sir John Nichols, Dean of the Arches, in Dowden v. Dowden. That was also followed in two other cases, the first one of which is Cooke v. Cooke (1863) 3 Sw. & Tr. 126. After the constitution of the Royal Court for matrimonial cases, when the Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction had been taken away, a Judge in that Court (I think it was Sir John Wilde) also adopted the opinion which has been expressed in those other cases. It has been followed also by the late President of the Probate and Divorce Division, Lord Hannen, in the case of Ridgway v. Ridgway (1881) 29 W.R. (Eng.) 612. So one must apply one's mind to this case having regard to the, authorities that have been cited.

17. In my opinion the wife has established in this case that her health suffered by the conduct of the husband after she condoned his incestuous adultery, and the result of that is that the incestuous adultery has been revived, and therefore the wife is entitled to a decree.

18. On the wife's petition, I grant a decree nisi with the usual order for costs, including ail reserved costs, and the husband's petition is dismissed with costs against the respondent and co-respondent. The wife to have custody of the child.