A.B v C.D (Divorce Cause No. 8 of 1955)
Observed later treatment
No later-treatment classification is recorded for this judgment.
Citator coverage is limited to judgments in the Wakilii corpus and source-matched treatment records. Absence of a signal is not an assertion that the case remains good law.
AI-generated summary. This summary was generated by AI from the full text of the judgment. It may contain errors or omissions—always read the source judgment before relying on it.
Holding
Application for leave to present a divorce petition within three years of marriage dismissed. The court held that the applicant failed to make reasonable attempts at reconciliation and wilfully concealed the respondent's reconciliation efforts from the court. The breakdown of the marriage was primarily due to the applicant's physical malformation, which had been surgically corrected. The respondent's conduct did not amount to exceptional depravity, nor did the applicant suffer exceptional hardship as required by section 5 of the Matrimonial Causes Ordinance. Even if such grounds existed, the court would not have exercised its discretion in the applicant's favour given her unreasonable refusal to attempt reconciliation after her medical condition was cured.
Outcome
Application for leave to present divorce petition dismissed
Facts
The parties, both young Europeans, married in Kenya on 13 December 1952. From the marriage until 18 January 1953, the applicant wife alleged that the respondent husband insisted upon very frequent marital intercourse despite her complaints of intense pain. On 18 January 1953, the applicant entered hospital where surgery removed a cyst from her left ovary and corrected her uterus to a normal position. Her medical adviser informed her that the operation would end the pain previously suffered during intercourse. The applicant refused to resume cohabitation. On 22 January 1955, she applied for leave to file a divorce petition on grounds of cruelty, notwithstanding that three years had not passed since the marriage. The respondent made several attempts at reconciliation after the applicant left hospital, including meetings in July and November 1953, but the applicant refused, stating she felt an invincible repugnancy to her husband. The applicant initially failed to disclose these reconciliation attempts to the court, only revealing them after peremptory orders.
Issues
- Whether the applicant satisfied the requirements for leave to present a petition for divorce before the expiration of three years from the date of marriage under section 5 of the Matrimonial Causes Ordinance.
- Whether there was reasonable probability of reconciliation between the parties.
- Whether the respondent's conduct amounted to exceptional depravity.
- Whether the applicant suffered exceptional hardship.
- Whether the Court should exercise its discretion to grant leave even if exceptional depravity or exceptional hardship were established.
Orders
- Application dismissed.
- Each party to bear own costs.
Rules and key headnotes
Legislation cited (2)
- Matrimonial Causes Ordinance Cap. 145 s.5
- Matrimonial Causes Rules r.2
Cases cited (5)
- Winter v Winter (1944) 73 CA
- Blunt v Blunt [1943] AC 517
- Fisher v Fisher [1948] P 263
- Charleshy v Charlesby (1947) 176 LTR 532
- Bowman v Bowman [1949] P 353
Full judgment
The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.