Present : De Sampayo J. and Dias A.J.    1920

ORR. v. ORR.

389-D. C. Colombo, 50,344.

Judicial separation-Grounds for-Cruelty.

It is not necessary to enable a wife to get a decree of judicial separation that there must be proof of cruelty or harshness or o display of personal violence as to give rise to reasonable apprehension that life, mind, or health would be endangered to plaintiff if separation were not decreed.

Among other grounds, continuous quarrels and dissensions, or other equally valid reasons, which render the living together of the spouses insupportable, will justify a judicial separation. Although a wife or husband may reasonably be expected to bear with occasional outbursts of illtemper, yet occasional assaults, however slight, accompanied by habitual intemperance, will make co-habitation insupportable.

THE facts appear from the following judgment of the District Judge (W. Wadsworth, Esq.):-

The parties were married in September, 1914, at St. Paul's Church, Pettah. He was a Protestant and she a Roman Catholic. Defendant's parents did not consent to the marriage, and the marriage took place very quietly, there being no invitations, no reception, and not even a wedding cake.

The defendant took his wife to her sister's house. The third day after the marriage there was a wedding breakfast at defendant's sister's house, when a few close relations sat at table. The plaintiff noticed defendant paying attentions to her sister, grew perhaps jealous, and in a rage, presumably due to the influence of liquor imbibed, flung her plate at defendant and left the breakfast table. The others also dispersed.

This was the first incident which culminated later in the distrust of the defendant by plaintiff, and that not without good reason. On the other hand, plaintiff received on the marriage day a gold wristlet watch from one Cyril Fernando with his name engraved on it. Defendant took objection to it and wanted the name to be erased or the watch returned. The defendant and plaintiff thus appear to have started life together with mutual distrust and a lurking suspicion. These suspicions and distrust had grown more and more, and defendant appears to have objected to Cyril Fernando visiting her, and to plaintiff going out of the house without his knowledge, and on the other hand, plaintiff viewed with suspicion defendant being away from the house. It may be noted that defendant is a Railway Guard, who was obliged in the course of his duties to be absent from home for some days continuously.

The parties were also addicted to drink, and whether they took liquor in small or large quantities, it is not surprising that they indulged in

quarrels, and in exchange of words, where the lady appears to have got the better of the two, as defendant says for every word of his she replied with ten.

The defendant on returning from his duty found her away from the house, neglectful of her duties and care towards him. But still they pulled together for some time both in Colombo and at Moratuwa, where the defendant was transferred on duty.

On their return from Moratuwa, the plaintiff would not go and live with defendant, as before, in his sister's house, but when defendant fell ill she went there and continued to live there till April 9, 1917.

In about June, 1916, the defendant met a nurse who had travelled by train. This nurse appears to have taken a fancy to the defendant and wrote amorous letters to him. The defendant did not consider it improper to reply to these letters.

The original charge against him was that defendant committed adultery with this woman. There is no proof of this. But the letters which were found in defendant's trunk, and admitted by him to have been received from this woman, show that the defendant was not faithful to his wife.

On April 9, when defendant left the house for a game of cricket, plaintiff took the keys of defendant from his pocket, went to