## Facts

- Carolyn Moody Parker (wife) and James Charles Parker (husband) married in 1966, separated in February 1984, and had no children.
- The parties lived and operated separate businesses on the same three-acre tract: her beauty shop and his garage.
- The wife sought a divorce for habitual cruel and inhuman treatment in the Chancery Court of Winston County.
- The husband did not appear or testify at trial; his counsel presented no evidence and rested.
- The wife presented lay witnesses and medical testimony describing the husband’s repeated jealousy and harassment, including confronting her at work, surveilling her, accusing her of infidelity, and engaging in intimidating conduct that interfered with her business.
- Evidence showed the husband’s conduct drove away customers, contributed to the failure of the wife’s beauty shop, and caused severe anxiety requiring hospitalization.
- The husband asserted recrimination as an affirmative defense, alleging the wife committed adultery; the chancery court found adultery and denied the divorce on the theory of “equal guilt.”
- The record indicated the alleged adultery occurred after the parties had separated.

## Issues

1. Whether the wife proved habitual cruel and inhuman treatment sufficient to warrant a divorce.
2. Whether the wife’s alleged adultery, asserted as recrimination, barred her from obtaining a divorce under the circumstances.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of Mississippi reversed the chancery court’s denial of divorce and dismissal of the complaint.
- The court held the wife’s proof of habitual cruel and inhuman treatment was overwhelming and uncontradicted.
- The court held recrimination did not bar relief on these facts, particularly where the alleged adultery occurred after separation and did not justify denying divorce in a marriage already destroyed by the पति’s conduct.
- The case was remanded with directions to grant the divorce and to determine appropriate ancillary relief, including property-related matters.

## Legal Principles

- Habitual cruel and inhuman treatment may be shown by a pattern of conduct that endangers life, limb, or health, creates a reasonable apprehension of such danger, or makes the marriage unsafe or intolerable; medically documented psychological injury and economic harm may support the ground.
- Recrimination traditionally bars divorce where the complainant is equally at fault for conduct that itself constitutes a divorce ground, reflecting a “clean hands” concept.
- Application of recrimination is fact-dependent; where the marriage is already defunct and the complainant’s alleged misconduct occurs after separation, recrimination may not justify denying divorce despite proven cruel treatment.
- Unrebutted evidence of sustained harassment and resulting psychological and economic harm can satisfy the burden for habitual cruel and inhuman treatment.

## Conclusion

The Mississippi Supreme Court ordered that the wife be granted a divorce because her evidence of habitual cruel and inhuman treatment was uncontradicted and severe, and it refused to apply recrimination to deny relief based on alleged post-separation adultery where doing so would merely preserve a failed and harmful marriage.


Parker v. Parker, 519 So. 2d 1232 (Miss. 1988)