Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

According to Davies J. in Baker v. Baker, (1955)3 All E.R. 193(12), persistent drunkenness after warnings that such a course of conduct is inflicting pain on the other spouse, certainly if it is known to be injuring the other spouse's health, may of itself amount to cruelty. Matrimonial Proceedings (Magistrates' Courts) Act, i960, section 1(1)(t) and section 2(1)(a) empowered the Magistrates in England to make an order of judicial separation on the ground that the husband is a habitual drunkard. In section 16(1)(a) habitual drunkard, was defined to mean a person who. by reason of intemperate drinking of intoxicating liquor (a) is at times dangerous to himself or to others or incapable of managing himself or his affairs, or(b) so conducts himself that it would not be. reasonable to expect a spouse of ordinary sensibilities to continue to cohabit with him. In Hall v. Hall, (1962) 2 All E.R. 129(3), the marriage had been unhappy through the drinking habits of. the husband. But there was no evidence that the husband had been violent lo the wife or that there was any conduct by him which would be described other than. as drunken behavior; nor was there any evidence that husband's conduct bad injured the wife's health. The wife had never before left the husband and had never specifically warned him that his conduct was likely to cause her to leave. The Magistrates held that there was no cruelty but there was constructive desertion. The Divisional Court held that there was no constructive desertion either. Sir Jocelyn Simon, P. after reviewing the reported cases of drunkenness found that where drunkenness has entitled a spouse to matrimonial relief, it has been either a case where it amounted to cruelly owing to its persistence in the knowledge that it was injuring the health of the other spouse or where it was of so extreme a nature, being accompanied by physical violence or involving possible danger to members of the household, that the continuance of matrimonial cohabitation was virtually impossible Rude behavior, returning late at night, depriving the wife much of his company, taking money from her handbag and bringing the family into ill repute with their neighbours conduct such as this was, according to him- a very usual concomitance of drunkenness which many wives have unhappily been called upon to endure. Yet, he considered the husband's conduct discreditable and unkind and advised probationary assistance for necessary readjustment between the parties. On appeal, in the House of Lords in Hall v. Hall, (1962) 3 All E.R. 518 (HL) (14), Lord Diplock observed that it is notorious that excessive consumption of alcohol causes different persons to react in different way. It does not seem that the reported cases are in any way decisive of whether this husband's conduct to this wife either could in law or in fact justify her in refusing to live with him any more. The Lords reversed the decision of the Divisional Court and restored the findings of the Magistrates. In Chand Narain Gautam v. Smt. Saroj Gautam, , it was said that mere consumption of alcohol by the husband may not ordinarily be a reasonable excuse for a wife to withdraw from his society but when it is coupled with violence it may be a sufficient justification for her refusal to live with him. Satinderial Gupta v.Swamalata Gupta, 1981 (1) D.M.G. .92 (Delhi) (16), adopted Raydon's summary, that drunkenness per se is not cruelty but may be, for example where it is persisted in, particularly after warnings that such conduct is injuring the other spouse's: health and held the conduct of a drunkard in order to be. called cruel should be so grave and weighty that no reasonable wife would tolerate it or that it was more than she was called upon bylaw to bear. But before any final word can be said in this regard we have to take note of :

(12) No doubt drinking is a constituent of culture all over the world, and is almost a cult in certain societies. Yet, even here as elsewhere a habit of excessive drinking is a vice and cannot be considered a reasonable wear and tear of married life. No reasonable person marries to bargain to endure habitual drunkenness, a disgusting conduct. And yet it is not an independent ground of any matrimonial relief in India. But it may constitute treatment with cruelty, if induced in by a spouse and continued in spite of remonstrances by the other. It may cause great anguish and distress to the wife who never suspected what she was bargaining for and may sooner or later find living together not only miserable but unbearable. If it was so, she may leave him and may, apart from cruelty, even complain of constructive desertion or willfully neglect by the husband. What then has the wife here to say?