Court Opinion

ID: 9670275
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 03:18:00.673972+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:16:03.558341
License: Public Domain

ON REHEARING
Appellant-wife asserts in her petition for rehearing the argument that our main opinion wrongly held that adultery was not a bar to a divorce on the ground of incompatibility. According to appellant, the only question with which we were presented was whether or not incompatibility is a permissible recrimination to a divorce sought on the ground of adultery.
We feel that appellant’s petition for rehearing raises no issue which was not considered and dealt with in the main opinion.
Appellant’s argument neglects the essential element of mutuality which pervades the doctrine of recrimination. Under this doctrine the mutual fault of both parties deprives either of a divorce. If there is mutual fault, recrimination bars a divorce; if there is no mutuality of fault —i. e., if only one or neither party is at fault — there is no recrimination at all.
Appellant’s argument, in the final analysis, fails to discern that we can only resolve the issue of recrimination as to her ground for divorce by equally and mutually resolving it as to her husband’s. That is what we clearly and explicitly did in the main opinion. We answered appellant’s issue — favorably to her, we must note — and, of necessity, simultaneously resolved the same issue as to her husband, although he did not raise the issue.
Opinion Extended.
APPLICATION FOR REHEARING OVERRULED.
WRIGHT, P. J., and HOLMES, J., concur.