Pszyk v. Pszyk

Connecticut Superior Court

Pszyk v. Pszyk

13 Conn. Super. Ct. 96, 13 Conn. Supp. 96, 1944 Conn. Super. LEXIS 75

CourtConnecticut Superior Court

DecidedSeptember 19, 1944

DocketFile 15615

StatusPublished

This text of 13 Conn. Super. Ct. 96 (Pszyk v. Pszyk) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Connecticut Superior Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Pszyk v. Pszyk, 13 Conn. Super. Ct. 96, 13 Conn. Supp. 96, 1944 Conn. Super. LEXIS 75 (Colo. Ct. App. 1944).

Pincite

Opinion

INGLIS, J.

This is an action for divorce on the ground of intolerable cruelty. The parties were married on October 23, 1943, after an acquaintance with each other of only about two months’ duration.

At the time of the marriage the defendant was in military service and claimed to be on leave. The parties lived together at the home of the plaintiff’s parents. The sum total of the plaintiff’s complaints is that the defendant lied to her on various matters, chiefly about his leave and various claimed extensions thereof, it later appearing that he was absent without leave, that he ignored her most of the time and failed to keep some appointments which he made with her, and that while she worked during the day he slept and then kept her awake well into the night by playing the radio. There were no acts of physical violence.

They lived together for only four weeks and then he deserted her. After that desertion she was in a nervous state and went to a doctor for treatment for about six months. She claims *97 that her nervous condition was the result of her husband’s treatment of her. It is, however, incredible that a mere four weeks of life under the conditions which she describes could have been a very material cause of a serious nervous break' down. It is more probable that her nervous condition, what' ever it was, was caused more by her own regrets over having hastily married a man who turned out to be not an ideal husband than by the defendant’s treatment of her. In any event the whole conduct of the husband, although not com' 'mendable, was not so bad as to nullify the purposes of the marriage. Although probably their life together was not at all agreeable to the plaintiff, the defendant’s acts taken ah together were a long way short of intolerable. The law does not contemplate that the status of marriage should be dissolved for such relatively trivial reasons. The plaintiff has failed to make out a case of intolerable cruelty.

Judgment may enter denying the divorce.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

INGLIS, J.

This is an action for divorce on the ground of intolerable cruelty. The parties were married on October 23, 1943, after an acquaintance with each other of only about two months’ duration.

At the time of the marriage the defendant was in military service and claimed to be on leave. The parties lived together at the home of the plaintiff’s parents. The sum total of the plaintiff’s complaints is that the defendant lied to her on various matters, chiefly about his leave and various claimed extensions thereof, it later appearing that he was absent without leave, that he ignored her most of the time and failed to keep some appointments which he made with her, and that while she worked during the day he slept and then kept her awake well into the night by playing the radio. There were no acts of physical violence.

They lived together for only four weeks and then he deserted her. After that desertion she was in a nervous state and went to a doctor for treatment for about six months. She claims *97 that her nervous condition was the result of her husband’s treatment of her. It is, however, incredible that a mere four weeks of life under the conditions which she describes could have been a very material cause of a serious nervous break' down. It is more probable that her nervous condition, what' ever it was, was caused more by her own regrets over having hastily married a man who turned out to be not an ideal husband than by the defendant’s treatment of her. In any event the whole conduct of the husband, although not com' 'mendable, was not so bad as to nullify the purposes of the marriage. Although probably their life together was not at all agreeable to the plaintiff, the defendant’s acts taken ah together were a long way short of intolerable. The law does not contemplate that the status of marriage should be dissolved for such relatively trivial reasons. The plaintiff has failed to make out a case of intolerable cruelty.

Judgment may enter denying the divorce.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

13 Conn. Super. Ct. 96, 13 Conn. Supp. 96, 1944 Conn. Super. LEXIS 75, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pszyk-v-pszyk-connsuperct-1944.