119 Wash. 176 | Wash. | 1922
— Respondent sued for separate maintenance from appellant, and when appellant answered, he also cross-complained for divorce, alleging cruelty, consisting of nagging, fault-finding, and harsh and opprobrious epithets on the part of respondent to appellant.
At the trial, respondent consented that her complaint might be considered a complaint for divorce, should the court consider a divorce proper and necessary.
Appellant insists that, because it was incontrovertibly established that the parties can no longer live together as husband and wife, a divorce should have been granted to one or the other, or both, instead of the decree of separate maintenance which was made.
The evidence showed very conclusively that respondent was not at fault, and0 appellant was. The parties had lived together as husband and wife for thirty-three years. At the time of trial, respondent was fifty-seven years of age, and appellant fifty-two. They had raised a family of four children, who had reached maturity. Respondent had always been a kind, affectionate wife, and an excellent housewife. They had never had any trouble whatsoever until appellant was discovered paying attentions to the other woman whose meretricious disposition is proven by the circumstances that she went boldly to the home of these parties, accompanied by her husband, and begged respondent to free appellant by divorce, and her husband would free her (which he did), and she and appellant could then marry. Respondent refused. Respondent frequently tried to induce appellant to forsake the other woman.
A decree of divorce which would free the incontinent husband, under such flagrant circumstances, would be against public policy and abhorrent.
Respondent evidently hopes, as did the trial judge, that some time the recreant husband will return to his senses and his conjugal fealty. Under the system in force in this state, an innocent wife has such right.
Decree affirmed.
Parker, C. J., Main, Mackintosh, and Hovey, JJ., concur.