Steeples v Steeples [1955] PGSC 17 (13 September 1955)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF
THE TERRITORY OF PAPUA AND NEW GUINEA
MATRIMONIAL CAUSES JURISDICTION

ERNEST JACK STEEPLES
Petitioner

and

FAY STEEPLES
Defendant

JUDGMENT.

1. In this case, the Petitioner, Ernest Jack Steeples, seeks a dissolution of his marriage with his wife (born Fay Kcitch) upon the grounds of desertion in an undefended action, in which Mr. Tonking of Counsel, appeared on his behalf.

2. The Petitioner was married on the 7^th August, 1946 to his wife, who was then a minor, but in respect of whom consent to the marriage was duly given by her mother.

3. After the marriage, the Petitioner and his wife cohabited in Sydney and he left in September, 1946 for Bulolo in the Territory of New Guinea on his own, as there was no "married accommodation" available for him then.

4. The wife followed about 9 months' later, and the parties seemed to have lived a normal matrimonial life.

5. In September, 1948 they went on leave, returning to New Guinea again in February or March, 1949; they continued to live together until about September, 1950. The wife then, apparently with the consent of her husband, left to stay with her mother in Queenbeyan, New South Wales.

6. In February, 1951 (later corrected by the Petitioner to April, 1951) he rejoined his wife at Queenbeyan and found her pregnant, a pregnancy for which he could not have been responsible, according to his testimony, as the wife then admitted to him verbally.

7. The Petitioner forgave his wife and this lapse, and the resultant child was made the subject of an adoption by some person seeking a child in that way. This episode is quite irrelevant to the present consideration.

8. There is issue of the marriage two children, John Ernest Steeples, born 15^th September, 1946, and Margaret Helen Steeples, born 15^th June, 1949.

9. The husband, after being in Australia with his wife about a month, was admitted to the Yaralla Repatriation Hospital where he remained an inmate about 9 months. During this time he testifies that his wife did not visit him or communicate with him in any way.

10. After his discharge, he did not go to stay with his wife at Queenbeyan but stayed in Sydney, and he says he returned to Bulolo in June or July, 1951 (a date which he subsequently corrected to September, 1951).

11. Before his departure, he called at his mother-in-law's house in Queenbeyan and was received coolly by his wife, and he thereupon collected his luggage and said he was off to New Guinea. She did not reply.

12. His witness, Carla Cavalleiri, however, fixed the date of the Petitioner's visit to the Queenbeyan as in April, 1952, and the Petitioner himself, in his subsequent evidence, placed it as in 1952 also.

13. The Petitioner returned to his work at Bulolo and has not lived with his wife since. Upon being asked by the Court what efforts he had made to get his wife to return to him, he said that upon his return he was making arrangements with the employer Company for married accommodation, when about 5 or 6 months after his return he received a letter from his sister giving him information which apparently put out of his head any thoughts of possibility a resumption of their matrimonial life.

14. The evidence satisfied me of the marriage and the domicile required of the Petitioner, but as regards the desertion, it is necessary to point out that the date of the commencement of the desertion, as set out in the Petition, is the 31^st May, 1951, a date when he was, according to his evidence, in the Yaralla Repatriation Hospital, and his wife residing with her mother in Queenbeyan. But, as I understand the law, such facts would not necessarily prevent proof of desertion by her if the facts placed before the Court warrant such a finding.

15. The Petition is dated the 15^th October, 1954, so that in order to establish the statutory length of time of desertion, namely three years, the Petitioner would be required to show that the Defendant deserted him on a date not later than the 15^th October, 1951.

16. The evidence does not enable me to conclude that the wife deserted her husband prior to that day or at all in fact, the evidence placed before the Court by the Petitioner was of the flimsiest and quite unsatisfactory, and, in the view of the Court, fails to support a finding of desertion such as he seeks.

17. The Petition is therefore dismissed.

J.
13/9/55.