Mauger v. Mauger1
| Author | A. Cork |
| Published date | 01 June 1967 |
| Date | 01 June 1967 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1177/0067205X6700200207 |
| Subject Matter | Case Notes |
JUNE
1967]
Case
Notes
MAUGER
v.
MAUGER!
275
Matrimonial
causes-
Desertion-Offers
to
resume cohabitation-Discre-
tion
to
refuse petition-Principles for appellate court review-Custody
and access-Effect
of
parent's extreme religious beliefs.
The parties had married in 1945, living happily together until about
1960, there being
five
children
of
the marriage. Sometime in 1959 the
husband had adopted the religious beliefs and practices
of
the Exclusive
Brethren sect and, from that time on, the marital relationship worsened
to
such
an
extent that within three years the marriage was completely
ruined.
During this period the husband's attitude had changed entirely. He
became solemn and severe in his manner, constantly pressed his wife to
join
the sect, forbade her social intercourse with persons who were
not
members
of
the sect and was guilty
of
cruelty towards the two eldest
children in his attempts to force them to join the sect. Despite the
husband's intolerable conduct in the name
of
his religion, the wife did
nothing to end the marriage.
In
May 1962 however, the husband deserted his wife, taking the children
with him. The wife applied for acustody order and in July 1962
Mansfield C.J. granted her custody
of
the three youngest children, with
provision for access by the husband.
On 8March 1965 adivorce raid took place and the wife was found
in the act
of
committing adultery. The husband took the two youngest
boys out
of
her custody on that date, leaving only the youngest child, a
daughter, remaining in the wife's custody.
Subsequently, the husband filed apetition for dissolution
of
the marriage
on
the ground
of
adultery. The wife, in her answer to the petition, denied
the allegations
of
adultery and sought adissolution on the ground
of
desertion.
The trial judge,
Hart
J.,2
refused to make adecree on the husband's
petition, but exercised his discretion in favour
of
the wife, granting her
adecree nisi on the ground
of
desertion. His Honour also awarded
custody
of
the three children concerned in the proceedings, (the two
younger boys and the daughter), to the wife and refused the husband
any access to the children.
The husband appealed from this judgment and, in determining the
appeal, the Full Court
of
the Supreme Court
of
Queensland was sub-
stantially concerned with four main issues. These were:
(1)
whether the period
of
desertion running against the appellant
had been terminated by his offers to resume cohabitation;
1
11967]
Qd. R. 62. Supreme
Court
of
Queensland; Lucas, Wanstall and Skerman JJ.
The IIigh
Court
on
19
October 1966 refused an application for special leave
to
appeal
from the Supreme
Court
judgment, and the Judicial Committee
of
the Privy Council
refused leave
to
appeal on 4July 1967.
2(1966) 7F.L.R. 484. This report deals only with the judgment
of
the trial judge
on
the issues
of
custody and access.
To continue reading
Request your trial