Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

The Explanation purports to give the meaning of the expression desertion with all its grammatical variations and cognate expressions. Permanent forsaking and abandonment (p) are expressions often used in the context of the matrimonial offence of desertion. The Explanation has widened the definition of desertion so as to include "wilful neglect" of the petitioning spouse by the respondent. It states that to amount to a matrimonial offence desertion must be without reasonable cause and without the consent or against the wish of the petitioner and that wilful neglect of one spouse by the other is desertion within the meaning of the expression. It will be seen that the meaning given is somewhat tautological but the Explanation has the merit of making it abundantly clear that the Legislature intended to give to the expression a wide import which includes wilful neglect of the petitioner by the other parry-to the marriage. It is also clear that the meaning given includes both actual desertion as well as what is generally referred to as constructive desertion in which although there is no ostensible abandonment of one spouse by the other there is expulsive conduct manifesting animus deserendi. One effect of including "wilful neglect" in the meaning of desertion is that wilful neglect of one spouse by the other is sufficient to establish abandonment or expulsive conduct and amounts to proof of the animus deserendi on the part of the latter which is an essential ingredient of the offence. This will have considerable bearing in cases of constructive desertion. The Explanation is intended obviously to avoid any attempt at defining an expression which is extremely difficult if not impossible to define in a manner which would fully bring out its comprehensive connotation. It is enough to satisfy the requirement of the rule that the abandonment was without reasonable cause and without consent. It is not necessary to show that it is against the wish of the person charging it.

The statutory requirement as to time during which the animus deserendi should continue if fixed at a continuous period of not less than two years immediately preceding the presentation of the petition. What is constructive desertion that has been discussed by Mulla at page 799 and that is quoted below:

"Constructive desertion - It is a well established principle that proof of factum of separation, which is one of the essential ingredients of the matrimonial offence of desertion, does not consist merely in ascertainment of which party left the home first. The rule is now well established that a spouse may be guilty of such misconduct as would render the continuance of marital relations so unbearable that the other spouse feels compelled to leave the matrimonial home and in such a case it is the former and not the latter, who is the deserter. There is no substantial difference between the case of a husband who leaves his wife with the intention of terminating cohabitation and the case of a husband who with like intent evidenced by his misconduct brings the cohabitation to an end by virtually compelling the wife to depart from the matrimonial home. In Lang v. Lang(d) the Privy Council summarized in an impeccable form the principles and made some general observations on the question of constructive or indirect desertion which give authentic guidance on the subject and will be found very instructive: "It has been recognised that the party truly guilty of disrupting the home is not necessarily or in all cases the party who first leaves it. The party who stays behind (their Lordships will assume this to be the husband) may be. by reason of conduct on his part, making it unbearable for a wife with reasonable self-respect, or powers of endurance, to stay with him, so that he is the party really responsible for the breakdown of the marriage. He has deserted her by expelling her; by driving her out. In such a case the factum is the course of conduct pursued by the husband-something which may be far more complicated than the mere act of leaving the matrimonial home. It is not every course of conduct by the husband causing the wife to leave which is a sufficient factum. A husband's irritating habits may so get on the wife's nerves that she leaves as a direct consequence of them but she would not be justified in doing so. Such irritating idiosyncrasies are part of the lottery in which every spouse engages on marrying, and taking the partner of the marriage 'for better, for worse'. The course of conduct- the 'factum'- must be grave and convincing. "Conduct which falls short of legal cruelty may justify one spouse in leaving another, provided it is of a grave and convincing character (e). It is not possible to deduce any principle of law by reference to which it can be determined in every case on which side of the line the case falls when this test of grave and convincing conduct is to be applied; the issue in the main would be one of fact and no criterion can be propounded which would be very helpful. In these cases it has to be noted that the Legislature has not thought fit to make the continuous unhappiness of the spouse caused by the unklndness, the lack of consideration, or the selfishness or every degradation of the other spouse aground for obtaining relief. It is essential to examine, as Lord Green, Master of the Rolls, observed in the undermentioned case (f), the actual facts to see whether the conduct of the spouse who is to blame can fairly and clearly be said to have crossed the borderline which divides blameworthy conduct causing unhappiness to the other spouse from conduct equivalent to expulsion from the matrimonial home. "It is," as Asquith L. J. observed in the same case, "possible to say of certain courses of conduct that they should not amount to constructive desertion, and of certain other courses that they could not fail to do so... But between the extremes indicated there is obviously a non-man's land where the issue is one of fact" (fl). One effect of including 'wilful neglect' in the meaning of desertion [Explanation] is that such neglect of one spouse by the other is sufficient to establish expulsive conduct. The neglect to become desertion must be such as amounts to forsaking or abandonment by a conscious disregard of the duties and obligations of the married state considered as a whole (g).
In the case of constructive desertion also there must be proof of both the essential ingredients of factum and animus desercndi on the part of the offending spouse. The law relating to this latter requirement was reviewed by the Privy Council in the above mctnioned case and it was laid down that prima facie in these cases a person is presumed to intend the consequences of his acts, though the inference may be rebutted; and if the whole of a husband's conduct is such that a reasonable man must know that it will probably result in the departure of his wife from the matrimonial home the fact that the husband did not want this consequence to ensure does not rebut the inference that he intended the probable consequences of his acts and thus his wife to leave the home. Conduct which would give rise to this inference must be grave and convincing and where it exists proof of actual intention to bring the matrimonial consortium to an end would not be required. Apart from rebutting evidence, therefore, such conduct would be sufficient proof of an intention to disrupt the home and it would be no answer that bis desire was that his wife will stay and the home will not be disrupted (h) It is sometimes said that a charge of constructive desertion cannot be proved by evidence of conduct, alleged to have caused the petitioner to leave the matrimonial home, of the nature of cruelly, but not amounting to cruelty in law (I). The true rule of the matter would seem to be that it is not possible to build up a case of constructive desertion by what is really a case of unproved cruelty.
That again does not cover the whole area of constructive desertion. Grave and weighty matters may be alleged which are quite different in kind and quite as serious, if not more serious, than cruelty. In this class of cases the facts are often somewhat complex and overlapping. If the facts and circumstances are such as satisfy the general test already discussed the court may well reach the conclusion that the conduct of the other spouse was equivalent to expulsion and that the complaining spouse was justified in leaving the matrimonial home. The acts sufficient to satisfy this test must be a serious and convincing nature, but conduct short of an actual matrimonial offence may be sufficient. The conduct, however, must from the very nature of the offence of desertion, obviously be of a grave and convincing character. It may include wilful neglect of the petitioner by the other party to the marriage."