Your World of Legal Intelligence
 Hong Kong | 1-800-335-6202

C v C

Judgment Cited authorities 3 Cited in Precedent Map Related
Vincent
Judgment Date27 March 1971
Subject MatterMatrimonial Causes
Judgement NumberHCMC184/1970
CourtHigh Court (Hong Kong)
HCMC000184/<a href="https://vlex.co.uk/vid/australia-and-new-zealand-808372917">1970 C v</a>. C

HCMC000184/1970

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG

DIVORCE JURISDICTION

ACTION No. 184 of 1970

-----------------

BETWEEN
C Petitioner
vs.
C Respondent

-----------------

Coram: Briggs J. in Court

Date of Judgment: 27th March, 1971

-----------------

JUDGMENT

-----------------

1. This is an undefended divorce petition brought by the husband on the ground of cruelty, which came before me on Saturday March 20th. Having heard the evidence I adjourned in order to consider certain authorities placed before me by Mr. Swaine who appeared for the Petitioner. The case presents unusual characteristics and for reasons which will be evident, I will avoid using the names of the parties.

2. The parties were married in Hong Kong on October 3rd 1958, the Petitioner being then 25 and the Respondent 24. Neither party had been married before.

3. The married couple spent their honeymoon in Singapore. The Petitioner wished to consummate the marriage but the Respondent refused to have sexual intercourse. According to the Petitioner the reason she gave was that she did not wish to have a child since the parties could not afford the expense of a family. At that time the Petitioner was earning $600 per month which he says, was ample in 1958 for the expenses their household and of a child's upbringing.

4. The parties returned to Hong Kong and set up their matrimonial home in premises which already belonged to the Petitioner.

5. Though he did everything in his power to persuade her the Respondent continued to refuse sexual intercourse to the Petitioner. This he says affected his health. He lost weight, became nervous and could not sleep. He consulted a psychiatrist and received treatment at the end of 1959 but it did not give him any relief.

6. Meanwhile his wife persisted in her refusal to allow him his marital rights. She always gave as her reason that she was unwilling to bear a child. However in the early part of 1961 which is two and a half years after the marriage, she had a change of heart. According to the Petitioner she said that she now wanted to have a child. Accordingly she allowed him to have sexual intercourse with her to that end in the summer of 1961. This occurred on only four or five occasions. As soon as the Respondent realised that she was with child she refused any further attentions of the Petitioner.

7. A daughter was born on May 12th 1962. But the Respondent refused to allow the Petitioner to resume sexual intercourse though he begged her to allow him to act towards her as a normal husband does to a normal wife. She gave as her reason that she did not wish to have another child.

8. The health of the Petitioner deteriorated and he started a course of sleeping tablets, which has continued until now.

9. The Petitioner persisted in his requests and pointed out to the Respondent the effect her continued refusal was having on his health.

10. In the summer of 1964 the Respondent relented and allowed the Petitioner to have sexual intercourse to a very limited extent. The Petitioner gave two reasons for this: He said that the Respondent had suddenly evinced a desire to have a son. And as a quid pro quo he agreed to pay for a trip to the Olympic Games in Japan.

11. Intercourse took place on four or five occasions and Respondent left for Japan. On her return she said she was pregnant and a son was born on June 11th 1965.

12. Since then there has been no sexual intercourse at all.

13. The Petitioner told me that his health in consequence has progressively worsened. He became irritable, nervous and depressed. And he continued to suffer from insomnia.

14. In addition towards the end of 1965 the relationship between the parties deteriorated further. The Respondent accused the Petitioner of keeping a mistress, upon occasion making this accusation before the daughter of the marriage. The Petitioner said that the accusation was quite untrue and that its repetition distressed him considerably.

15. In the middle of 1969 there was a quarrel between the parties during which the Respondent told the Petitioner to move out of the matrimonial home. This he refused to contemplate and the quarrel became serious. The Respondent even called in the police. In September of the same year the Respondent caused a letter to be sent to the Petitioner from the Yaumati District Office telling him to leave what was his own property. This remained unanswered but from then on the Respondent refused to speak a word to him. Finding this conduct more than he could bear, the Petitioner moved to his present address in November 1969.

16. The Petitioner is a business man and part of his duties is the entertainment of foreign and other customers in the evenings. This means that he sometimes kept late hours.

17. The Respondent wanted him to be home by 10.00 p.m. But this was not possible. Accordingly on some occasions, and the Petitioner said there were more than 20 such occasions, she locked the Petitioner out of the house. She refused to answer the door and he was obliged to seek refuge in apartment houses.

18. At the time of the filing of the Petition the parties had been married for 12 years. Only for two very brief periods was the Petitioner allowed sexual intercourse and then only for the purely utilitarian purposes of the production of a child. It is clear from the story of the...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT