HomeFamily lawDivorce

Can I Divorce for Habitual Drunkenness?

Yes. Section 17(f) allows a petition where, since the marriage, the other party has for not less than two years been an habitual drunkard, or habitually intoxicated by a sedative, narcotic or stimulating drug — or has been each of those for parts of the period.

The family law series, no. 53 · Dissolution of marriage · 5 min read

Section 17(f) of the Matrimonial Causes Act (Chapter 282) treats alcohol and drugs together.

Section 17(f)

Section 17(f)

That, since the marriage, the other party has, for a period of not less than two years

(i) been an habitual drunkard; or

(ii) habitually been intoxicated by reason of taking or using to excess any sedative, narcotic or stimulating drug or preparation,

or has, for a part or parts of such a period, been an habitual drunkard and, for the other part or parts of the period, has habitually been so intoxicated.

The aggregation clause

The closing words are the useful part. A respondent who was an habitual drunkard for eighteen months and then habitually intoxicated by drugs for a further eight is within the ground, even though neither state alone lasted two years.

Without that clause a person who switched substances would fall outside the section. The provision looks to the overall condition rather than the particular substance.

What must be proved

Elements of the section 17(f) ground
ElementDetail
Since the marriageConduct before the marriage does not count, however well known to the petitioner
HabituallyA settled condition, not occasional excess
Habitual drunkardThe term is not defined in the Act — it carries its ordinary meaning
Sedative, narcotic or stimulating drug or preparationWide language, covering prescription and illicit substances alike
Taking or using to excessUse as prescribed and in proper quantities is not within the paragraph
Two yearsContinuous, or made up of alternating periods under the aggregation clause
The paragraph does not require harm to the petitioner

Unlike cruelty under section 17(d), section 17(f) is directed at the respondent’s condition rather than at conduct towards the petitioner. Nothing need be shown about violence, neglect or the effect on the household.

Where the drinking has been accompanied by violence or by a failure to support the family, other grounds may also be available — section 17(d), section 17(g) where the husband has suffered frequent convictions and left the petitioner without reasonable means of support, or constructive desertion under section 18.

The bars

  1. Section 27condonation or connivance is an absolute bar on grounds (a) to (k), which includes (f). A spouse who has supported the other through treatment and resumed the relationship may face that argument — though condonation may be revived by a relapse.
  2. Section 29(d) — the court may refuse where the habits of the petitioner have, or the conduct of the petitioner has, conduced or contributed to the existence of the ground. Where both parties drank heavily together, this is a real obstacle.
  3. Section 31 — section 17(f) is not among the grounds available without leave in the first three years. Since the ground itself requires two years, leave will often be needed.

Proving the ground

What courts look for

The condition must be shown to have persisted for two years. Evidence commonly relied on includes:

  • Medical records — hospital admissions, treatment for dependence, liver disease;
  • Employment records — dismissal, repeated absence, warnings;
  • Police and court records — drink driving, public order matters. Note that frequent convictions may separately engage section 17(g);
  • Evidence from family, neighbours and employers as to the pattern over the period;
  • Financial records showing expenditure or the failure to provide for the household.

Section 80 governs the standard of proof, and section 81 the evidence of husbands and wives.

Reconciliation is encouraged first

Section 10 requires the court to consider the possibility of reconciliation, and allows a Judge to nominate a marriage conciliator. Where the ground is dependence, that step may lead to treatment rather than dissolution.

Statements made in the course of a reconciliation attempt are protected by section 12, and section 13 imposes an oath of secrecy on conciliators.

Sources

Check the section yourself

Before relying on anything here, read the current text of the Marriage Act (Chapter 280) and check for later amendments. If a decision matters to you, get advice — start with the Office of the Public Solicitor, or find a firm in the law firms directory.

Disclaimer: This article provides general information about Papua New Guinea law and does not constitute legal advice. Laws may change, and their application depends on individual circumstances. You should obtain professional legal advice for your specific situation. Read the full disclaimer.