Frederick Maud v Alice Maud

Frederick Maud appealed to the High Court of Australia from a decision of the Supreme Court of Victoria, which had dismissed his petition for divorce against his wife, Alice Maud. The petitioner sought dissolution of the marriage on the ground of wilful desertion without just cause or excuse for three years and upwards, as provided by section 122(a) of the Marriage Act 1915 (Vict.). The core of the dispute concerned whether the respondent's persistent refusal of sexual intercourse constituted desertion for the purposes of the Act.

The legal issues before the High Court were whether the persistent refusal of sexual intercourse, by itself, amounted to wilful desertion within the meaning of the Marriage Act 1915, and if not, whether the specific facts of the case demonstrated a cessation of cohabitation in the legal sense, thereby constituting desertion. The appellant argued that the refusal of sexual intercourse was an abandonment of the primary object of marriage and therefore constituted desertion, even in the absence of physical separation.

The High Court, in dismissing the appeal, affirmed the decision of the Supreme Court. The Court held that desertion requires an abandonment of matrimonial society, and that the mere persistent refusal of sexual intercourse does not, in itself, constitute desertion while cohabitation continues. Cohabitation, in the legal sense, was found to persist where the parties continued to reside under the same roof, share meals, speak to each other, and the wife performed her ordinary household duties. The Court reasoned that such conduct indicated a continued dwelling together, even without sexual relations, and therefore did not amount to an abandonment of the marital relationship.

The appeal was dismissed, and the decision of the Supreme Court of Victoria was affirmed.