Owings v. Owings

ITí-vun, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. The decree in this, case dismissed a hill of complaint in which the appellant alleged that his wife had abandoned and deserted him by refusing, without just cause, to have sexual intercourse with him during a period of more than five years prior to the suit, and that for six months preceding the filing of the bill they had been wholly separated. The parties have been married about twenty years. They have two children, a son and daughter, who are now fourteen and twelve years of age, respectively.

The relations of the parties have been exceedingly unfortunate. While their complete separation did not occur until the time mentioned in the bill, their normal associations as man and wife had long been discontinued. It is undisputed that sexual intercourse between them had not occurred for a period of more than three years before the pending' divorce suit was instituted. If, as the bill of complaint alleges, the husband’s conduct towards his wife was “kind, affectionate and above reproach,” and she unjustifiably refused, for the period mentioned, to permit him to have sexual intercourse with her, then unquestionably her conduct would have to be regarded as an abandonment of her husband, and, in view of its duration, he would be entitled to an absolute divorce.

Klein v. Klein, 146 Md. 27 ; Roth v. Roth, 145 Md. 83 ; Ruckle v. Ruckle, 143 Md. 213 ; Martin v Martin, 141 Md. 185 ; Fleegle v. Fleegle, 136 Md. 631 . lint if, as the answer avers, the .suspension of their conjugal relations was caused by the husband’s cruel treatment of his wife, then his suit for a divorce is clearly not maintainable. Young v. Young, 136 Md. 84 ; Pattison v. Pattison, 132 Md. 362 ; Polley v. Polley, 128 Md. 60 . The question we are to determine upon ¹²⁶ the evidence in the record is whether the lower court was wrong in deciding’ that the husband’s conduct was responsible for the separation, and that his bill of complaint should consequently be dismissed. The testimony proves beyond controversy that since 1920 the feeling of the appellant and appellee towards each other has been one of increasing aversion.

Their early affection gave place to a mutual and positive dislike which naturally tended to promote an interruption of their conjugal intercourse. The wife’s antipathy towards her husband was manifested by expressions of scorn and hatred. There is, also testimony, which is contradicted, that she attempted against him certain acts of violence. The husband’s conduct towards his