scarf, and overshoes. She also asked the Court to order him to pay her an allowance of $20 a month for personal items and expenses. The Superior Court granted her request and ordered Mr. Martins to pay his wife a single lump sum of $1,500 for the purchase and installation of a new furnace and toilet and $4 a week spending money. The Appellate Court affirmed. We reverse.
In
Dupuis v. Dupuis
, 202 Nar. 576 (1933), a wife sued her husband for failure to provide her with household goods and amenities. Although the circumstances of her existence were not so grim as those recounted here, they are similar enough for us to recognize its ruling as the governing precedent. Mrs. Dupuis wanted money to install a new refrigerator in place of a 19th-century icebox, to purchase new bedclothes and linens, and to buy a new sofa, the old one having collapsed. She also asked the Court to order her husband to repair the family automobile, which had two missing side windows and a broken heater. The Court rejected her suit and set out the rule, which today we apply again.
However much we might deplore the miserliness of Mr. Dupuis, we cannot do what his wife asks. A husband is obliged to provide the necessities of existence, which the law defines as adequate food, clothing, and shelter and reasonable medical attention. He need not provide more, no matter his income or savings. It is not the Court’s business to dictate the appropriate standard of living, only the minimum below which no woman should be expected to live. Where the husband has met this minimal standard and where the marriage bond between the couple is maintained and he has not abandoned her or she him, the Court will not substitute its judgment for that of the household.
Dupuis v. Dupuis
, 202 Nar. at 580.
As in
Dupuis
, we too deplore the miserliness of the husband/breadwinner, but personal feelings cannot provide the governing standard. While Mrs. Martins has fled the marital bedroom, she has remained beneath the marital roof and expressed no wish or interest in obtaining either a legal separation or divorce. Nor for that matter has Mr. Martins, and there is no evidence that conjugal rupture is the reason for his iron grasp on the purse strings or her suit to loose it. Minimal as it is, Mr. Martins has provided his wife with adequate food, shelter, and clothing and reasonable medical care. So long as their marriage continues and so long as he continues to provide to his wife these bare “necessities of existence,” the Court will not interfere with their domestic financial arrangements. In accord
Commonwealth v. George
, 358 Pa. 118, 56 A.2d 228 (1948);
McGuire v. McGuire
, 157 Neb. 226, 59 N.W.2d 336 (1953).
There is hardly a married couple in this country who does not have disagreements over money. In the absence of proof of neglect or desertion, the Court must leave them to their own devices. The sanctity of marriage demands no less; as the State will not intrude into a couple’s bedroom or bathroom, so it must not take over the checkbook. The case is reversed and remanded.
Parisier, J., Lawler, J., Bauer, J., Pritchard, J., Gordon, J., and Cabolis, J., join this opinion.
* * *
Narragansett Statutes
Title 33 of the Narragansett Code, Sections 801ff.
Dissolution of Marriage, Annulment, and Legal Separation
Sec. 832. Alimony (also known as Maintenance or Spousal Support).
The Narragansett Family Court may order either of the parties to pay alimony (also known as maintenance or spousal support) to the other. In determining whether alimony shall be awarded, and the duration and amount of the award, the court shall consider the length of the marriage, the causes for the dissolution, legal separation, or annulment of the marriage, the age, health, station, occupation, earning capacity, amount and sources of income, vocational skills, employability, property, liabilities, and needs of each of the parties, and the opportunity of each for future acquisition of capital
In
Dupuis v. Dupuis
, 202 Nar. 576 (1933), a wife sued her husband for failure to provide her with household goods and amenities. Although the circumstances of her existence were not so grim as those recounted here, they are similar enough for us to recognize its ruling as the governing precedent. Mrs. Dupuis wanted money to install a new refrigerator in place of a 19th-century icebox, to purchase new bedclothes and linens, and to buy a new sofa, the old one having collapsed. She also asked the Court to order her husband to repair the family automobile, which had two missing side windows and a broken heater. The Court rejected her suit and set out the rule, which today we apply again.
However much we might deplore the miserliness of Mr. Dupuis, we cannot do what his wife asks. A husband is obliged to provide the necessities of existence, which the law defines as adequate food, clothing, and shelter and reasonable medical attention. He need not provide more, no matter his income or savings. It is not the Court’s business to dictate the appropriate standard of living, only the minimum below which no woman should be expected to live. Where the husband has met this minimal standard and where the marriage bond between the couple is maintained and he has not abandoned her or she him, the Court will not substitute its judgment for that of the household.
Dupuis v. Dupuis
, 202 Nar. at 580.
As in
Dupuis
, we too deplore the miserliness of the husband/breadwinner, but personal feelings cannot provide the governing standard. While Mrs. Martins has fled the marital bedroom, she has remained beneath the marital roof and expressed no wish or interest in obtaining either a legal separation or divorce. Nor for that matter has Mr. Martins, and there is no evidence that conjugal rupture is the reason for his iron grasp on the purse strings or her suit to loose it. Minimal as it is, Mr. Martins has provided his wife with adequate food, shelter, and clothing and reasonable medical care. So long as their marriage continues and so long as he continues to provide to his wife these bare “necessities of existence,” the Court will not interfere with their domestic financial arrangements. In accord
Commonwealth v. George
, 358 Pa. 118, 56 A.2d 228 (1948);
McGuire v. McGuire
, 157 Neb. 226, 59 N.W.2d 336 (1953).
There is hardly a married couple in this country who does not have disagreements over money. In the absence of proof of neglect or desertion, the Court must leave them to their own devices. The sanctity of marriage demands no less; as the State will not intrude into a couple’s bedroom or bathroom, so it must not take over the checkbook. The case is reversed and remanded.
Parisier, J., Lawler, J., Bauer, J., Pritchard, J., Gordon, J., and Cabolis, J., join this opinion.
* * *
Narragansett Statutes
Title 33 of the Narragansett Code, Sections 801ff.
Dissolution of Marriage, Annulment, and Legal Separation
Sec. 832. Alimony (also known as Maintenance or Spousal Support).
The Narragansett Family Court may order either of the parties to pay alimony (also known as maintenance or spousal support) to the other. In determining whether alimony shall be awarded, and the duration and amount of the award, the court shall consider the length of the marriage, the causes for the dissolution, legal separation, or annulment of the marriage, the age, health, station, occupation, earning capacity, amount and sources of income, vocational skills, employability, property, liabilities, and needs of each of the parties, and the opportunity of each for future acquisition of capital
Similar Books
