EDMUND DELAIRE v MARCELLINA DELAIRE

SAINT LUCIA IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE (CIVIL) A.D. 1996 Suit No. D46/1994 Between: EDMUND DELAIRE Petitioner vs MARCELLINA DELAIRE Respondent 1996: February 8 March 15 & 20 Mr. T. Chong for Petitioner Mrs. V. Barnard for Respondent JUDGMENT d'Auvergne J. parties were married to each other on 3rd , 1987 at La Clery, St. Lucia after a very long courtship. are no children of the marriage but the wife s two daughters born outside wedlock prior to the marriage. second daughter who is in her early twenties is ld of one Herelton Celestin who drove her on evenings after classes to home in Talvern, Babonneau where she resided with mother Respondent in a two storey building purchased by Petit er the marriage. Petitioner is a Saint Lucian who works the United States of

America and returns to his home in Saint Lucia every vacation for periods not exceeding twenty-one days. The evidence disclosed that at the time of the marriage t Respondent was already acting as manageress/overseer of the Petitioner's two estates and continued to do so after the age. As a further incentive the Petitioner opened an account t ir joint names from which the Respondent was to pay es of estates and provide for her upkeep. ortunately unhappy differences arose and re i eriorated. The Petitioner alleged that the Re a even continuous relationship with the said Herelton Celestin and tery told the Court that the Respondent admitted to committ wi th him. The Respondent vehemently denied the sa al relationship and admittance of adultery. The Petitioner told the Court that he was seeking a on t ground that the marriage had broken down irretri in that the not Respondent had behaved in such a way that the Petitioner reasonably be expected to live with the Respondent. He particularized the Respondent's behaviour and d Court that the Respondent intended to harm him by of tch craft l and ~ dangerous weapons such as knives, cutlass and a fork which he found under her bed. He narrated further incidents which led to believe that there was a continuing relationship between the said Herelton Celest and the Respondent which has caused him much pain and suf Respondent answered the allegations in the petition Cross itioned for a dissolution of the said marriage. said it was the Petitioner's behaviour which has caus breakdown of the marriage. She portrayed the Petitioner as a

jealous impotent man, who, because of his impotency, would 1 pain on her by returning home late at nights and If down on the bed and squeezing her breasts and very t narrated various idents which showed that Petit behaved in such a way that she could not to 1 with him. said that on the 22nd May, 1992 the Pet to drunk returned home late and after usino t 1 to proceeded to chase the Respondent and two who lived with her outside the matrimonial home whereupon he licted blows on her with the flat side of a cutlass which necessitat seeking medical attention. About thirteen months later, again returned home late, started a quarrel with the Respondent and then proceeded to smash t television set with a cutlass and Respondent who had to flee the matrimonial home and seek Iter at a neighbour. She subsequent returned home. In May of 1994 the Petitioner again caused ury to Respondent, once more she sought medical attention s t she was unable to return to the home s the Pet changed all the locks on the doors and employed known to in the matrimonial home. CONCLUSION Having heard and observed the parties I have unreservedly at the conclusion that the marriage has to be dis s it irretrievably broken down. It is so mv ies contributed to the breakdown of the marriage.

My order is therefore as follows: 1) This Court Holds that the Respondent has behaved such a way that the Petitioner cannot reasonably be expected to 1 th the Respondent. That the Petitioner has behaved in such a way t Respondent cannot 1111 reasonably be expected to 1 Petitioner. That the marriage solemnized on the 3rd day of 1987 at La Clery in the State of Saint Lucia tween Petitioner and the Respondent has broken down irret 2) And this Court Decrees that the said marriage be dis unless sufficient cause be shown to the Court wit three months from the making of this decree why such decree d not be made absolute. 3 ) That all ancillary matters be adjourned to rs to a to be fixed upon application of either party. s 4 That there will be no order as to Costs each party to or her own Costs. SUZIE d'AUVERGNE PUISNE JUDGE

Suit No. D46 of 1994 D’Auvergne, J Delivered: 20/05/96