## Facts

- A husband petitioned for dissolution of marriage on the ground of the wife’s cruelty.
- The parties married in 1925, had two children, and cohabited until the husband left the matrimonial home on September 29, 1958.
- The wife’s conduct included repeated violence, jealousy, obscene and abusive language, and pressuring the husband to have sexual intercourse when he did not wish to do so, including by physical acts such as hair-pulling and ear-grabbing.
- The husband consulted solicitors, who wrote to the wife about her behavior; he nevertheless continued living at home for a period.
- On the night of September 28–29, 1958, the wife persisted in seeking intercourse; the husband ultimately had intercourse “for the sake of peace” and to obtain sleep.
- The next morning the husband left and did not return.
- At trial, cruelty was found proved, but the petition was dismissed because the final act of intercourse was treated as condonation.
- On appeal, the wife did not challenge the cruelty finding; the only live question was condonation.

## Issues

1. Whether a single act of marital intercourse after the petitioner has knowledge of established cruelty constitutes condonation that bars a decree based on that cruelty.
2. Whether intercourse said to have occurred under pressure, reluctance, or as part of the cruel conduct can avoid condonation on the ground of lack of voluntariness.
3. Whether any exception (such as fraud inducing intercourse) prevented the intercourse from operating as condonation on these facts.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal dismissed the husband’s appeal and affirmed dismissal of the petition.
- The court treated intercourse after knowledge of the matrimonial offense as conclusive evidence of condonation, because it signifies reinstatement of the spouse in the marital relationship.
- The court rejected the contention that the husband’s unwillingness or desire to keep the peace made the intercourse involuntary for purposes of condonation.
- The court recognized a limited exception where intercourse is induced by fraud, but found no such exception applicable.

## Legal Principles

- Condonation is a voluntary forgiveness of a matrimonial offense, commonly inferred from conduct consistent with restoration of the marital relationship.
- Post-offense marital intercourse, with knowledge of the complained-of conduct, is treated as conclusive evidence of condonation because it is a strong outward act of reinstatement.
- Reluctance or acting “for peace” does not, without more, negate voluntariness for condonation where the petitioner retained the ability to refuse or separate.
- A narrow exception may apply where intercourse is procured by fraud; absent such circumstances, intercourse operates as condonation and bars relief based on the earlier offense unless subsequent misconduct revives the ground.

## Conclusion

The Court of Appeal held that, although the wife’s cruelty was established, the husband’s knowing participation in marital intercourse immediately before separation conclusively amounted to condonation, defeating a cruelty-based petition in the absence of a recognized exception such as fraud.


Willan v. Willan, [1960] 1 W.L.R. 624 (C.A. 1960)