Opinion ID: 1721534
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: did the chancellor err in awarding separate maintenance to nancy robinson?

Text: The court-created equitable relief of separate maintenance is based upon the marriage relationship. This Court discussed the function of its office in Thompson v. Thompson, 527 So.2d 617 (Miss. 1988) in the following terms: In Etheridge v. Webb, 210 Miss. 729, 50 So.2d 603 (1951), this Court said: ... The power to grant separate maintenance to a wife was based on (a) separation without fault on the wife's part, and (b) willful abandonment of her by the husband with refusal to support her. These jurisdictional requirements for a separate maintenance decree have continued up to the present time. 210 Miss. at 743, 50 So.2d at 607. Bridges v. Bridges, 330 So.2d 260, 262 (Miss. 1976). A decree for separate maintenance is a judicial command to the husband to resume cohabitation with his wife, or in default thereof, to provide suitable maintenance for her until such time as they may be reconciled to each other. Amis, Divorce and Separation in Mississippi, § 189 (1st ed. 1935); Bunkley and Morse's Amis, Divorce and Separation in Mississippi, § 7.00 (2d ed. 1957); see Hand, Divorce, Alimony and Child Custody, § 25-1 (2d ed. 1987). Id. at 621. John contends that Nancy is not entitled to separate maintenance because the chancellor, in his final order, found her conduct materially contributed to the separation. This Court will not reverse a Chancery Court's findings of fact where they are supported by substantial credible evidence in the record. Anderson v. Burt, 507 So.2d 32, 36 (Miss. 1987); Norris v. Norris, 498 So.2d 809, 814 (Miss. 1986). This is true of ultimate facts as well as evidentiary facts. Norris, 498 So.2d at 814. Put another way, this Court will affirm a trial court sitting without a jury on questions of fact unless, based on substantial evidence, the court is manifestly wrong. Brown v. Williams, 504 So.2d 1188, 1192 (Miss. 1987); Harkins v. Fletcher, 499 So.2d 773, 775 (Miss. 1986). A careful reading of the record clearly demonstrates that the lower court correctly found that Nancy's conduct materially contributed to the separation because of the psychological makeup of her husband; thus, the wife here was not without fault. John's argument that the award of separate maintenance was unwarranted has merit. Under the chancellor's findings, which are supported in the record, this Court agrees that there should be no award of separate maintenance. Although the wife did make efforts to salvage this marriage after the separation by seeking marital counseling, these efforts came too late. Finding the husband's leaving the marriage was justified, the Court is of the opinion that no separate maintenance can be awarded to the wife. Marble v. Marble, 457 So.2d 1342 (Miss. 1984); Cox v. Cox, 279 So.2d 612 (Miss. 1973); King v. King, 246 Miss. 798, 152 So.2d 889 (1963) states: While the law does not require a wife who leaves her husband to be blameless, misconduct on her part which materially contributes to the separation, so that it may be said that the fault of the wife is equal to or greater than that of the husband, or that his fault was not sufficient to justify her leaving the domicile, is a defense to her suit for separate maintenance. See Hilton v. Hilton, 88 Miss. 529, 41 So. 262 (1906). Id., 152 So.2d at 891. Based upon the chancellor's finding supported by the record, and the case law of this state, this Court reverses the chancellor's granting of separate maintenance for the wife, but affirms the award of support for the minor children.