Leslie v Leslie

• Jurisdiction: Belize
• Court: Supreme Court (Belize)
• Judge: Staine, J.
• Judgment Date: 07 April 1978
• Docket Number: Action No. 61 of 1978
• Date: 07 April 1978

Supreme Court

Staine, J.

Action No. 61 of 1978

Leslie

and

Leslie

Appearances:

Mr. Denys Barrow for the Petitioner.

Mr. Wilfred P. Elrington for the Respondent.

Staine, J.

Family law - Husband and wife — Application for divorce by husband refused on ground that he had not proved desertion by the wife.

1 This is a petition by a husband for divorce on the grounds of the wife's desertion and cruelty, and praying for the court's exercise of its discretion on the grounds of his own adultery. At the date of his petition he was living with a woman and in fact, intends to marry her.

2 The parties were married in 1955 and the wife bore the husband six children. The first five were born between 1955 and 1962. From 1962 to 1967 the wife had no children until, in 1968, when she gave birth to the sixth child.

3 The husband was a musician and often travelled with a popular band called “Los Beliceños”. In fact it appears he owned the band and from time to time was out late at night playing with the band and indeed travelled with the band to the neighbouring Republics of Nicaragua and Honduras in the year 1963. He returned about ten months later or perhaps after a longer time (the period is disputed) and resumed living with his wife. Whilst he was away in the republics his wife received no money from him and, on his return, he confirmed this because the evidence discloses that he had given some money to a friend to deliver to the wife, but the wife never received the sum he says he sent, and on his return he was refunded the money by the person with whom he had sent it.

4 It appears that by this time the band had become very popular and frequently travelled to the districts playing.

5 From evidence, it appears that up to this period the marriage was a happy one and life proceeded along normal lines.

6 Then it appears that difficulties commenced. The petitioner complains that when having sexual intercourse with his wife, after the fifth child was born (and that was in the year 1962), he was not allowed to discharge into her as, according to him, she was afraid of becoming pregnant. In other words, he was compelled to practice what is known as coitus interruptus. This, he said, bothered him because it made his private get big and he had difficulty thereafter in obtaining an erection. And this was the result of holding back from ejaculating into his wife.

7 The petitioner said he consulted Dr. Adolfo Perez-Scholfield and told the doctor of his symptoms and the doctor told him that that was the result of holding it back and advised that he should let it go or it would kill nature more.

8 He said after seeing the doctor his wife became pregnant in 1967 and gave birth to the sixth child in 1968. This, he said, was the result of his following the doctor's advice and not holding back when ejaculating. He also said that previous to giving birth to the child in 1968 his wife had been pregnant but that she had “thrown away” the child of that pregnancy.

9 The petitioner continued living together with his wife and, he said, they had sex off and on, that is, before the birth of the sixth child in June 1968.

10 The petitioner left the country in 1968, in the month of January and he went to the United States to better his condition, as he puts it. At that time the marriage was still going. He did not have any intention of bringing the marriage to an end. Whilst he was in the United States he was able to work, the petitioner said he sent money to the wife by asking his sister to send sums from time to time, but he, himself did not personally, at any stage, send any money to the wife for herself or the children. Then sometime, whilst he was in the United States, he suffered an injury as a result of which he was unable to work for some considerable time and therefore was not in a position to send any money to his wife. This continued until 1972 when he returned to Belize after having had a court settlement in respect of his injuries and brought home the sum of $11,900 U.S. The petitioner then resumed cohabitation with his wife who, he said, was reluctant to have sexual intercourse with him and still insisted in practicing coitus interruptus when she did consent.

11 The final blow came when on a particular day, the petitioner took home a pork leg for the wife to cook and at meal time found that the wife had not cooked it. He thereupon became annoyed and left the matrimonial home because, as he said, this showed an intention on the part of his wife not to cook for him, and this was the proverbial straw that broke the camel's back. Thereafter he lived separate and apart from his wife and up to the present moment.

12 The petitioner called one witness, Dr. Perez-Schofield, who recalled the petitioner consulting him sometime, as he thought, in the late 1960's on a matter concerning the practice of coitus interruptus. Dr. Perez-Schofield said that he did not examine the petitioner and he could not recall the date he...