Dear Experts,
I have been going through the defination of connivance and came to know some English law referred in Delhi High Court Judgement but not able to track the right document. Please advise.
"What amounts to connivance or collusion on the part of the husband has been explained in several
English cases. See Gipps v. Gipps II H.L. Cas. I. Even the civil remedy of the husband, viz.,
dissolution of marriage is gone when there has been such delay as to lead to the conclusion that
the Petitioner had either connived at the adultery or was wholly indifferent to it. See F. Willams v.
Williams I.L.R. 3 Cal. 688 and Holloway v. Holloway I.L.R. 5 All. 71"
I have read one defination of Connivance where in it is written that connviance to obtain evidance is not a default on husband part. Please read below:-
Connivance
Connivance, which is sometimes called "voluntary blindness," means a
secret plan to achieve an evil or illegal end. Black’s Law Dictionary says,
"As constituting defense in divorce action, [connivance] is plaintiff’s
corrupt consent, implied or expressed, to an offense charged against the
defendant. This defense has been abolished in many states with the
enactment of no-fault divorce laws."
Connivance is a secret plan to achieve an evil or illegal end, and as a
defense against a charge of adultery works very much like collusion. Let’s
say, for example, that a wife wished to get a divorce from her husband. If
she invites someone to stay at the couple’s house while she is absent,
and that someone seduces the husband into an affair, the husband could
later claim that the wife connived – or set him up to commit – adultery in
order to get a divorce.
Connivance was used to trick a husband into an affair. Adultery by the
husband was a recognized grounds for divorce. If the woman could not
get a divorce any other way, she may have been willing to trick her
husband into having an affair. It sounds farfetched today, a woman trying
to trick her husband into having an affair, but it happened.
Connivance was commonplace enough to put it on the books. Spouses
used to go to the expense of hiring private detectives or other agents to
seduce the other spouses.
In this routine, connivance and collusion could come together in mixtures
limited only by the imagination of a spouse who wanted out of a marriage.
Connivance was not limited to cases of adultery. If one spouse had an
alcohol or drug problem, and the other spouse purchased alcohol or
drugs for that spouse, the court could find connivance.
Sometimes a husband believes his wife is being unfaithful but prefers not
to discover it, this is not connivance. The husband has not taken active
steps to allow the wife to commit adultery. He has not aided and abetted
her actions, or, as one court put it, he has not "smoothed the path to the
adulterous bed." Nor is it connivance when a husband believes his wife is
being unfaithful but bides his time as he gathers evidence to prove it. The
husband did not take active steps to get his wife to commit adultery. He
merely gathered evidence of behavior she had already embarked upon.
Connivance was difficult to prove and so was rarely used in a fault
divorce. With the rise of the no-fault system, connivance is for all intents
and purposes extinct.
Please advise.
Regards,
Dhiraj
