DALMATIAN'S MARRIAGE

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXVIII, Issue 20981, 18 September 1931, Page 12

DALMATIAN'S MARRIAGE

FIVE WEEKS' ACQUAINTANCE. CEREMONY IN YUGOSLAVIA. HUSBAND GRANTED DIVORCE. A Dalmatian who married a girl after five weeks' acc|iiniutnin-e when lie returned to his native village in Yugoslavia on a short visit from New Zealand, sought a divorce from his wife in thn Supreme Court yesterday. Petitioner was Ivan Pavlinovic, labourer, of Martin borough (Mr, lioss), and respondent Maro-Neda Pavlinovic (Mr. Sullivan), op posed the grant of n decree. Tlio grounds of the action comprised desertion since March 15, 1028. Petitioner stated that lie had married his wife in Podgora, Yugoslavia, on October 16, 1927. Me had known her for five weeks, and the two left for New Zealand two days later. Witness had been in New Zealand for 22 years and when he was married lie was uti a short visit to his native country. On their arrival in the Dominion thev lived in Auckland for a short time and then went to Dargaville. In March, IQ2B, his wife left him, without any reason, and the following month she commenced proceedings for a separation order on the grounds of cruelty. When the case was heard, tho magistrate. Mr. F. 11. Levien, attempted to effect a reconciliation, and no ordor was made. Respondent refused to return to witness, although he wrote to her twice later and offered to make a home for her. In reply to Mr. Sullivan, petitioner said he had never given his wife any money. She had never asked for it. His father had been opposed to the marriago and had said lie would cut witness out of h:s will. Mr. Sullivan: If you get rid of your wife your father will give you his property, will he not? Witness: I do not know. You are prepared to return to Dalmatia as soon as you are rid of her? —No. Petitioner denied that there had been any trouble with his wifo on tho voyage out, or that lie had offered her money to go back home. After a number of witnesses had been heard Mr. Sullivan said it would be shown that respondent did not desert her husband without lawful cause. Respondent and a number of relatives would state that petitioner had shown cruelty to her. Respondent said Pavlinovic's father was not in favour of tho marriago and that had changed her husband's attitude. On the steamer after leaving Naples her husband had used bad language to her and had seized her by the throat, while after they arrived in Auckland he struck her on the neck on one occasion. On another occasion he kicked her in the back, causing her pain. Witness detailed a number of other occasions on which she alleged her husband had ill-treated her. A number of other Dalmatian witnesses were called by Mr. Sullivan. In granting the petition Mr. Justice Herdman said petitioner had proved that he was entitled to a decree, while the onus was on respondent to show that her husband had been guilty of such misconduct as justified desertion. Ho was not satisfied after hearing the evidence, which was strangely contradictory, that tho wifo had made out a case against petitioner. His Honor granted a decree nisi, to bo moved absolute in three months, costs, £25, and disbursements, being allowed respondent.