Miller v. Miller

²⁰⁵ Urner, J., delivered the opinion of the Oonrt. An application for alimony was denied by the decree to be reviewed on this appeal. The bill of complaint by which relief of that, nature was sought by the wife alleged that she had been abandoned and deserted by her husband, but her right to a divorce a men&u et thoro upon that ground was not asserted. In the interval of more than two years between the filing of the bill and the date of the decree now appealed from, a suit for the annulment of the marriage was instituted by the husband and proceeded to a trial, which resulted in a decree dismissing the suit and sustaining the validity of the marriage.

The suit for alimony was then pressed to a conclusion. The decree denying such relief to the wife appears, from the Circuit Court’s opinion to have been influenced by a consideration of the circumstances under which the marriage was agreed upon and which the chancellor, who decided both the annulment and alimony cases, regarded as having a prejudicial effect upon the wife’s claim of support from her husband, notwithstanding the recognized compatibility of the prenuptial facts with the existence of a valid marriage as formerly adjudicated. It is unnecessary for- the purposes of our decision to discuss the evidence adduced in the annulment suit. There was no appeal from the decree by which it was dismissed, and the parties are concluded by that decision.

It was an effectual determination that the parties had entered into a valid and binding marital contract. The obligations incident to that relationship are definite and unqualified. It is the essential purpose and express pledge of a marriage that the husband and wife shall live in a state of conjugal union. The law does not concede to either party the right to disregard the important and vital duty thus assumed.

It is only for causes specified by statute as adequate that the refusal of one spouse io sustain or continue normal relations with the other will be judicially sanctioned. In this case, there was, in our opinion, no legal justification, because of any