1. In a suit for separate maintenance brought by the wife, she must, in order to prevail, show, first, that her husband has abandoned her or separated himself from her without justification, and second, that he has refused or neglected to maintain and provide for her.
2. It is a wife's duty to live with her husband and give him her services and society, and she is relieved from these obligations only if she can show that the conduct of her husband has been such as will reasonably convince the court that her life or health are in danger or her life rendered one of such extreme discomfort and wretchedness as to incapacitate her from discharging her duties as a wife, or that the conduct of her husband, if continued, would have brought about these conditions.
3. Extreme cruelty which will justify the separation of one spouse from the other is that degree of cruelty, either actually inflicted or reasonably feared, which endangers the life or health of the aggrieved party, or renders his or her life one of such extreme discomfort or wretchedness as to incapacitate him or her, physically or mentally, from discharging the marital duties.
4. Drunkenness and vile language, without more, do not constitute extreme cruelty.
5. A false charge of adultery is not extreme cruelty per se. To constitute extreme cruelty, such a false charge must be maliciously or wantonly made, and must be made under circumstances which in fact cause anguish and pain of the extreme nature contemplated by the definition of extreme cruelty. Even then, if the accusation be made under stress of reasonable suspicion caused by the wife's conduct, it does not amount to extreme cruelty.
6. Although there are certain types of conduct that amount to cruelty per se, and yet others which, though bitterly resented by the spouse and which even make her life one of extreme discomfort and wretchedness, do not amount to extreme cruelty, yet there is a large middle ground which includes cases where the husband's conduct may or may not amount to extreme cruelty, depending on the motives and the degree of provocation and persistence of the husband, the state of health, refinement and delicacy of the wife, the station in life, background, education and surroundings of the parties, and upon all the facts and circumstances of the case.
7. Defendant occasionally, when intoxicated, expressed himself harshly regarding male friends of his wife. While his expressions were intemperate, they were nevertheless clearly intended to safeguard the sanctity of his home, and his conduct therefore cannot be regarded as amounting to extreme cruelty.
8. Defendant occasionally over-indulged in intoxicating drink, and while intoxicated, said and did things offensive to the complainant. Held, that under the circumstances of this case defendant's intemperance, with resulting offense to the complainant, was not extreme cruelty.
9. Defendant occasionally criticised complainant's management of the household. Complainant objected thereto and asserted herself as the head of the home. Defendant, under the law, is the head of the matrimonial domicile. Defendant's criticisms were not extreme cruelty within the purview of the law.
PER CURIAM.
The decree appealed from will be affirmed, for the reasons expressed in the opinion filed by Advisory Master Herr.
For affirmance — THE CHANCELLOR, TRENCHARD, PARKER, LLOYD, CASE, BODINE, DONGES, BROGAN, VAN BUSKIRK, KAYS, DEAR, WELLS KERNEY, JJ. 13.
For reversal — None.