Frederick Maud v Alice Maud [1919] HCA 2

Frederick Maud v Alice Maud [1919] HCA 2

Persistent refusal by a spouse to engage in sexual intercourse does not by itself amount to desertion for the purposes of divorce under sec. 122(a) of the Marriage Act 1915 (Victoria), as desertion requires abandonment of cohabitation, which in law may subsist without sexual relations.

Parties
Appellant, Petitioner: Frederick Maud; Respondent: Alice Maud
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
12 March 1919
Procedural Posture
Divorce Petition (dissolution of Marriage) / Appeal From the Supreme Court of Victoria
Outcome
appeal dismissed; decision of Supreme Court of Victoria affirmed
Legal Topics
Divorce, Desertion, Matrimonial Offences, Cohabitation
Family Law Divorce Desertion Matrimonial Offences Cohabitation

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 18 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Frederick Maud

Appellant, Petitioner

Alice Maud

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Divorce Petition (dissolution of Marriage) / Appeal From the Supreme Court of Victoria

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether persistent refusal of sexual intercourse constitutes 'desertion' under sec. 122(a) of the Marriage Act 1915 (Victoria)

Ratio Decidendi

Persistent refusal by a spouse to engage in sexual intercourse does not by itself amount to desertion for the purposes of divorce under sec. 122(a) of the Marriage Act 1915 (Victoria), as desertion requires abandonment of cohabitation, which in law may subsist without sexual relations.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed; decision of Supreme Court of Victoria affirmed

Orders

  • petition for dissolution of marriage dismissed