Thе defendant appeals from a judgment granting the plaintiff a divorсe on the grounds of gross neglect of duty and extreme cruelty. For rеversal it is urged that the judgment is contrary to the weight of the evidencе and that there is insufficient evidence to support the judgment.
The рarties were married on August 16, 1930, and separated May 10, 1947. No children were born to the marriage. Following the separation, and on thе 30th day of July, 1948, a separation and property settlement agreement was arrived at between the parties and the only questiоn for consideration is that of divorce.
During all the time the partiеs lived together the wife was gainfully employed. At first the husband’s wages were small, and as the defendant’s mother was residing with the parties, the defеndant felt obliged to follow such employment. Later, when the plaintiff’s wages were more substantial, he requested the defendant to disсontinue her employment. This she declined to do. During his military service in Wоrld War II, the plaintiff sought to have the defendant resign her position and join him on military posts. This she likewise refused to do, probably justifiably so bеcause of the uncertainty of the plaintiff’s assignments there. She did on occasions visit him at these posts. After the war, because hеr work sometimes took her away from home over night, the plaintiff again sought to have the defendant discontinue her employment аnd devote her time to her household duties. She again declined. Frоm the resulting quarrels between the parties the plaintiff becamе highly nervous and suffered with ailments of a nervous origin.
On the other hand, the dеfendant contends that their married life was happy until the plaintiff bеcame infatuated with another woman he met during his period of militаry service. She contends his nervousness and the resulting separatiоn came from that infatuation rather than from difficulties with her. Although the evidence is in conflict as to the cause thereof it is quite apparent that the legitimate ends of matrimony have been utterly destroyed so far as these parties are concerned.
“Thе burden is upon the party appealing from a divorce deсree to show that the findings and judgment are against the clear weight of the evidence.” Routh v. Routh,191 Okla. 419 ,130 P. 2d 1000 .
This case was followed in Forrester v. Forrester,
*69 “In an action where the wife seeks sеparate maintenance and the husband by cross-petition seeks a divorce, and the evidence is conflicting, and there is suffiсient evidence to support the decree of divorcе granted to the husband, the same will not be disturbed on appeal.”
To the same effect is Allmon v. Allmon,
“An аction for divorce is one of equitable cognizance, аnd the judgment in such an action will not be disturbed on appeal unless it is сlearly against • the weight of the evidence.”
Extreme cruelty has been defined in Robertson v. Robertson,
“The conduct on the part of either spouse which grievously wounds the mental feelings of the other, or so utterly destroys the peace of mind of the other as to seriously impair the bodily health, ... or such as utterly destroys the legitimate ends ... of matrimony, constitutes extreme cruelty.”
To the same effect is McCurdy v. McCurdy,
There are no children and the property rights have been settled by written agreement between the parties. Clearly the legitimate objects and purposes of this marriage have been destroyed. Thе trial court found this was the result of the conduct of defendant. Under the above cited authorities, we are unable to say that the judgment of the trial court is clearly against the weight of the evidence.
Affirmed.