## Facts

- Husband filed a Pennsylvania divorce action alleging cruel and barbarous treatment and indignities to the person; he later amended to add desertion.
- The parties married in 1942 and later lived on a Washington County, Pennsylvania farm titled to them as tenants by the entireties.
- The marriage was marked by frequent conflict, mutual hostility, and repeated verbal insults.
- Husband alleged wife threatened to kill him during a car trip and attempted to run him down; wife denied the incident and the allegation lacked corroboration.
- Husband also alleged indignities including name-calling, spitting, threats with weapons, attempts to strike him, removal of furniture from his bedroom, frequent absences from the home, and refusal to have children.
- Wife presented testimony portraying husband as abusive and demeaning.
- A master recommended granting a divorce on cruelty, indignities, and desertion; the trial court entered a final divorce decree after dismissing the wife’s exceptions.

## Issues

1. Whether the evidence proved cruel and barbarous treatment (actual violence, reasonable apprehension of violence, or a course of conduct endangering life or health and making cohabitation unsafe).
2. Whether the evidence proved indignities to the person as a course of conduct rendering the spouse’s condition intolerable, and whether the husband was the “innocent and injured” spouse.
3. Whether the evidence proved desertion sufficient to sustain a divorce decree.

## Decision

- The Superior Court reversed the divorce decree and denied the husband’s complaint.
- The court held the husband did not prove cruel and barbarous treatment; the principal episode was denied, uncorroborated, and viewed as improbable on the husband’s own account.
- The court held the husband did not prove indignities because the record showed a mutually antagonistic marriage and did not clearly establish him as the innocent and injured spouse.
- The decree could not stand on desertion on this record.

## Legal Principles

- “Cruel and barbarous treatment” requires actual personal violence, a reasonable apprehension of such violence, or a course of treatment endangering life or health and rendering cohabitation unsafe.
- A divorce for “indignities to the person” requires proof of a continuing course of conduct that renders the plaintiff’s condition intolerable.
- The plaintiff seeking divorce for indignities must be the “innocent and injured” spouse; evidence showing mutual fault or merely an unhappy union is insufficient.
- Allegations central to a fault-based divorce ground require credible proof; uncorroborated and implausible testimony may be rejected on appellate review.

## Conclusion

The court set aside the divorce decree because the husband failed to meet Pennsylvania’s demanding proof requirements for cruelty and indignities, and the evidence portrayed mutual marital misconduct rather than a clear showing that he was the innocent and injured spouse entitled to a fault-based divorce.


Rankin v. Rankin, 181 Pa. Super. 414, 124 A.2d 639 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1956)