Causes of divorce

Part 1

 Habitual drunkenness. ferriere vs ferriere 1969 MR 100

 If the wife delivered a child that is not his. lazare vs lazare 1892 MR 69
 Guilty of adultery with no means of her own and nobody to provide for
her maintenance and she was compelled to live with another man. Elysee
vs elysee 1954 MR 231
 Desertion. d’offay vs d’offay 1864 MR 3.
 Refusal or neglect to perform according to articles 212, 213,214 of the
code civil. I. Vs I. 1867 MR 4.
 Abandonment + other outrages C. v C. 1877 MR 114
 Persistent refusal of a wife to return to her husband which was maintained
after an adjournment of the cases was a “fait” sufficiently “injurieux” to
justify the grant of a divorce- 1939 MR 216

Part 2
 Desertion. Leaving partner without consent McKay vs McKay 1964
MR 146
 The behaviour of a party to a marriage, who suffered from a serious
contagious disease prior and subsequent to his marriage was held to
amount to “faute” Elysee vs Elysee 1954 MR 231
 Petitioner discovered that the respondent had epilepsy after the
marriage. Jootun vs Jootun 1987 MR 173 / SCJ 105

 After marriage, the petitioner discovered scars on the respondent's

body. Boodhoo vs Boodhoo 1987 MR 174 / SCJ 106
 2 Years imprisonment for embezzlement was held an “injure
grave” Adolphe vs Adolphe 1955 MR 297
  on the ground of satiate and ‘injure grave’ although the defendant had
expressed in court his regrets of his past conduct and made promises to
behave affectionately towards his wife in future. Du Rhone de Beauvoir
vs Du Rhone de Beauvoir 1869 MR 109
 Repeated acts of brutality committed by the husband, his drunkenness
and idleness are subsequent grounds for a divorce especially where the
same are not proved to be caused by the wife’s first conduct. Cesar vc
Cesar 1865 MR 71
 The matrimonial offences alleged although committed in the course of a
single day, presented a character of such gravity and brutality that they
could not in the circumstances be treated as merely “passager” Gillot vs
Gillot 1963 MR 219

Part 3

 A wife respondent was shown to have contracted a second religious

marriage to another party with whom there was not any evidence that she
had ever cohabited or had sexual relations. Held: (Per Simmons
J.)Although the evidence adduced was insufficient to establish a finding
of adultery, the second religious marriage undergone by the wife, in the
knowledge that her husband was alive, constituted an "injure grave"
entitling the husband to obtain a decree of divorce. Moolkae vs Moolkae
1952 MR 197
 The failure by a husband to make adequate provision for his wife and
children where he is in a position to do so constitutes an "injure grave"
justifying the grant of a decree of divorce. Poussin vs Poussin 1955 MR
282
 Gambling habits of a husband which impair his dignity and are a source
of vexation and humiliation to his wife may amount to "injures graves"
 entitling the husband petitioner to a decree of divorce. Adolphe vs
Adolphe 1955 MR 297
 "aux torts partagés des époux” The parties sought a divorce and one of
the reasons was that the respondent had changed religion. Minerve vs
Minerve 1987 MR 45
 The faute of a husband was established and held to amount to a “violation
grave des obligations du mariage” in that he withheld his real age and the
fact that he had children of a previous marriage, from the
petitioner. Dookhit vs Dookhit 1990 MR 360 / SCJ 355
 “torts partagés”. The respondent sought a divorce on the ground that the
appellant had changed her religion and was neglecting her household
duties and generally humiliating her. The trial judge granted the divorce
on the ground of the wife’s fate holding that she had done everything to
defend the respondent. Veeramootoo vs Veeramootoo 1991MR 39 /
SCJ 118

 The wife being under the age of 15 at the time of the civil marriage,
obtained the consent of the Governor General by fraudulent
misrepresentations on the part of the spouses and their relatives, with the
purpose of obtaining the wife's allowance from the military authorities.
The respondent promised to marry the petitioner religiously on his return
from military service, but when the time came refused to do so on the
ground that the wife's allowance had been misappropriated by her father.
Held: In the circumstances the respondent's refusal amounted to an
"injure grave”. Tegaully vs Tegaully 1954 MR 176.
 For the first three or four days after the wedding, the marriage remained
unconsummated by reason of the respondent's impotence, despite his
attempts. He explained his incapacity by saying that he was ill. After
another eight days there was a quarrel in which the respondent took away
 the respondent's wedding ring and struck her. On the following day, she
left the matrimonial home, the marriage still not having been
consummated, and never returned. Held: (Per Simmons J.) Remy vs
Remy 1957 MR 20
 The petitioner claimed a divorce on the ground that the respondent had
wrongly led the petitioner to believe that she was a virgin prior to their
marriage. Ramdani vs Ramdani 1985 MR 29

Part 4
 The unreasonable, persistent and unprovoked refusal of sexual
intercourse by either spouse was held to constitute and “injure
grave”. Nadal vs Nadal 1956 MR 158
 The wife explains that
the reason for her refusal to have sexual intercourse, which she
admits, was twofold: in the first place she said it was because he
insulted her, and secondly she said that he always wanted
intercourse in the presence of the children, some nearly of age, who all
sleep in the same room as the parties, and also because the petitioner
complained that the respondent assaulted her. Yow Sin Cheung vs Yow
Sin Cheung 1956 MR 165.

 This is an action of Divorce “a vinculo,” at the suit of the wife against the
husband, who is a notary’s clerk, on the ground ofdesertion for the
statutory period of 5 years. Boulle vs Boulle 1875 MR 43