Physical Separation:

The typical case of physical separation occurs when both spouses have established separate households in two different locations. However, in modern city life, it often happens that the parties may not be living under separate roofs yet still be living separately if they have established separate households.

In Santos v. Santos, an English court stated that a household "essentially refers to people living together by a particular kind of tie; if that tie is broken, only the roof remains." Thus, when spouses are living under the same roof, the test of whether they are living in separate households is whether there is a sharing of domestic life.In Hopes v. Hopes, the husband confined himself to two rooms of the house and ceased all contact with his wife. This was held to be a separation of households. On the other hand, where there was estrangement between the spouses and they had ceased to have sexual intercourse, yet they shared the same living room, ate at the same table, and sat by the same fire, it was held that there was no separation of households.

In Mouneer v. Mouneer, the spouses were on bad terms for some time, to the extent that the wife filed for divorce on the grounds of cruelty. The parties had children from the marriage. Attempts at reconciliation were made but did not progress much. The divorce proceedings also remained pending. In this situation, the parties continued to live under the same roof, though they slept in separate bedrooms.

They usually took their meals together, and the wife did most of the household cleaning. Later, the husband left the house and petitioned for divorce, to which the wife consented. The court held that the fact of living separately for two years was not established. The spouses continued to live in the same household, perhaps from the admirable motive of properly caring for their children, but their motive did not change the fact that they did not separate from the household.

End Notes:

1. AIR 1992 SC 1904: (1991) 1 KLJ 553: (1991) 2 SCC 25.
2. (1972) Fam 247. See also Mouneer v. Mouneer, (1972) I WLR 321.
3. (1949), p. 227.
4. See also Hollens v. Hollens, (1971) 115 SJ 327.
5. Veatherley v. Weatherley, (1947) AC 268. See also Hopes v. Hopes, (1949), p.
6. Mouneer, (1972) 1 WLR 321.
7. (1972) 1 WLR 321.
8. (1973) 1 WLR 730.