Harford v Harford

• Jurisdiction: Grenada
• Judge: St. Bernard, J.A.,Lewis, C.J.,Louisy, J.A.,P. Cecil Lewis
• Judgment Date: 25 January 1972
• Neutral Citation: GD 1972 CA 4
• Docket Number: No. 6 of 1972
• Court: Court of Appeal (Grenada)
• Date: 25 January 1972

Court of Appeal

Lewis, C.J. (Ag.); St. Bernard, J.A.; Louisy, J.A. (Ag.)

No. 6 of 1972

Harford

and

Harford

Appearances: –

G. Clyne for appellant.

H.E.L. Hosten, Q.C. for respondent.

Family law - Husband and wife — Application by wife for maintenance — Finding that magistrate did not pay sufficient attention to the evidence of wife that husband behaved cruelly whenever she asked for necessities — Appeal allowed.

St. Bernard, J.A.

1 This is an appeal from an order of the magistrate dismissing an application by the appellant for a maintenance order against her husband under section 13 of the maintenance Ordinance, Chapter 180 of the Laws of Grenada.

2 The grounds alleged in the complaint were three, namely- the appellant (a) being under a duty to provide reasonable maintenance for his wife has refused to do so; (b) has been guilty of persistent cruelty; and (c) has deserted his wife.

3 At the trial the defence pleaded adultery and desertion without giving any previous notice of the particulars of adultery. Perhaps I should state at this point that it is the duty of the respondent, despite the fact that there are no pleadings in the magistrate's court, that whenever a charge of adultery is made in a matrimonial matter, full particulars of that charge must be given before the trial to the party against whom the allegations are made. An allegation of adultery is a serious charge against a person, and one could not be expected properly to meet that allegation if that defence is raised at the trial without notice. I would adopt the words of Lord Merriman in the case of Duffield v. Duffield [1949] All E.R. 1105 at page 1106 where he stated:

“ In Broadbent v. Broadbent, Lord Merrivale, P. and Hill, J., put the matter in a way which is unanswerable and is unlimited in its application to any circumstances in which a charge of adultery may arise before a court of summary jurisdiction.”

4 The trial proceeded and the appellant gave evidence in support of the grounds alleged in her complaint. She stated that the respondent and herself were married in 1968 and the marriage went well for a short whiles. The husband refused to give her money and would slap her everytime she asked far money to buy clothes. When she asked for food he would slap her also and he has done this, at least, about eight or nine times. On the third September, 1971, (that is the day on which she left the home) she stated that she was washing in a tub when her brother-in-law Elijah Harford took a hose and sprayed her with it. She complained to the husband saying “look how your brother wet me”. The brother said to her husband “Frank, kick her up, kick her up.” The husband replied, “my foot is too good to kick her, the quicker she leaves the place and go the better for her,” They he took a piece of rope and struck her on her buttocks with it. She went away and on her return the respondent told her to go to Mr. Archibald and make right for her coffin. She went to the police station and left the home.

5 The husband, with the support of his brother, gave evidence that on the 3rd of September, 1971, the brother found her committing an act of adultery. Elijah Harford, the brother of the respondent, stated that on that date he was going to feed a cow, and when he reached a part of the field, he saw the appellant with a man having sexual intercourse. The man ran away and so he was unable to identify him, but it was a brown skinned man. He said he saw the appellant take her panties and put in her bosom and he saw the erection of the man's penis....