Leonhard v. Leonhard

Horney, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. The underlying question on appeal in this suit for separate maintenance where the wife was the only witness is whether corroboration of her testimony was required. The bill alleged that the husband deserted the wife without justification and that the efforts she made to effectuate a reconciliation were rejected by him. At the trial of the case before the chancellor, the wife, after relating the details of the desertion and her efforts to bring about a reconciliation, testified as to her standard of living before and after the marriage, as to the income and property interests of the parties, and as to the support payments she received from the husband after the separation.

Although the wife indicated that she intended to call another witness not then present, she neither sought a short postponement nor called other witnesses. The husband did not testify or offer any evidence because he thought his wife had not proven that he had deserted her. ⁴⁹¹ The chancellor, being of the opinion that corroboration was not required since this was a suit for separate maintenance rather than an action for divorce and that the decision of the husband not to controvert or otherwise contradict the testimony of his wife indicated agreement with what she had said, held that the husband deserted the wife without lawful cause and awarded her alimony and counsel fees. Under the somewhat unusual circumstances of this case the order of the chancellor will be reversed without prejudice. Although the provisions of Code (1957), Art. 35, § 4, requiring corroboration in suits for divorce, are not in express terms made applicable to suits for separate maintenance, the cases make it clear that where separate maintenance or permanent alimony is sought the allegata et probata must nevertheless be such as to entitle the wife to a divorce had such relief been sued for.

Schriver v. Schriver, 185 Md. 227, 241 , 44 A. 2d 479 (1945) ; Gold v. Gold, 191 Md. 533 , 62 A. 2d 540 (1948); Roeder v. Roeder, 170 Md. 579 , 185 Atl. 458 (1936); Silverberg v. Silverberg, 148 Md. 682 , 130 Atl. 325 (1925). And the holding in Wiegand v. Wiegand, 155 Md. 643 , 142 Atl.