558 ARTICLE 16

Common law obligates father to support child during minority, which continues
after divorce unless otherwise deqreed. Obligation ceases on death of father; estate not
liable. Powers of court re support of children not broader than re alimony. Blades
v. Szatai, 151 Md. 646. (And see dissenting opinion.)

Husband who left his wife and lived with children of former marriage held, under
testimony and circumstances, to have left wife with intention of deserting her. Schwartz
v. Schwartz, 158 Md. 80.

In suit by wife for permanent alimony, the husband files cross-bill for divorce, the
court can determine custody and support of infant children whether divorce is granted
or not. Simmont v. Simmont, 160 Md. 422.

Refusal of husband to return to home with wife, with letter and personal interview
declaring his intention to end all relations between them, held to justify divorce a mensa
for abandonment. Juergens v. Juergens, 160 Md. 532.

Cited but not construed in Bushman v. Bushman, 157 Md. 171; Kriedo v. Kriedo,
159 Md. 234; Wald v. Wald, 161 Md. 502.

See notes to art. 35, sec. 4.

Requirement to sustain charge of abandonment and desertion; condonation. Bonwit
v: Bonwit, 169 Md. 189.

Causes of separation must be grave and weighty and such as to show that the
duties of married life cannot be properly discharged, to entitle one to divorce a mensa
et thoro. Foeller v. Foeller, 171 Md. 660.

Custody of Children.

The court may revise its decree as to the disposition of the child, though the appli-
cation is made after the expiration of the term at which the decree is passed. Where
a divorce is granted on the ground of the misconduct of the wife, the; evidence should
be very clear to justify th'e court in taking the child from the father and giving it
to the mother; primary concern of the court in such cases. Pangle v. Pangle, 134
Md. 169.

This section does not contemplate that questions as to the custody and support
of children should be passed on until the divorce proceeding is heard on its merits. Act
of 1920, ch. 574, and ch. 573 (see sec. 85), inapplicable. This section broad enough
to cover all questions concerning care, custody, support and maintenance of children.
Hood v. Hood, 138 Md. 363.

A decree awarding the wife the guardianship and custody of children, and charging'
the husband with their support, relying on this section, upheld for want of evidence,
even if the discretion of the lower court in such a matter could properly be reviewed.
Roth v. Roth, 143 Md. 150.

The estate of the wife will be awarded to her, and the guardianship and custody of
the children ordered, only when a divorce has been decreed. Murray v. Murray, 134 Md.
657; Hood v. Hood, 138 Md. 361.

Separation agreement of husband and wife does not discharge either from obligation
to support child. Court may order who shall have custody of child and be charged
with maintenance. Melson v. Melson, 151 Md. 206.

Jurisdiction of equity courts under this section as to custody, etc., of infant children
cannot be enlarged or abridged by order law court in habeas corpus proceeding relating
to custody of child. Tull v. Tull, 172 Md. 215.

Generally.

This section referred to in holding a bill for a divorce a mensa sufficient; this section
relates exclusively to divorces a mensa; the jurisdiction to grant such a divorce is
purely statutory and the causes specified in the statute are exclusive. Etheridge v.
Etheridge, 120 Md. 12.

If both the husband and wife have been guilty of offenses justifying a divorce, neither
will be granted a divorce. Evidence showing cruelty. Martin v. Martin, 141 Md. 183.

A divorce, a mensa may be granted for abandonment, without regard to its duration.
Harding v. Harding, 22 Md. 345.

The term "abandonment and desertion," must be understood in a technical sense;
desertion not made out. Childs v. Childs, 49 Md. 514.

A decree under this section is unnecessary and perhaps improper, where there is a
deed of separation by which the parties have placed themselves in the same position in
which the court would place them by a divorce a mensa,. Brown v. Brown, 5 Gill, 255;
Brown v. Brown, 2 Md. Ch. 319.

In an application for a divorce a vinculo, where the appellant does not" at the hearing
or in his brief, ask for a divorce a mensa, it will not be determined whether he is en-
titled to the latter. Wheeler v. Wheeler, 101 Md. 436.

For a case involving the extra-territorial validity of a decree prohibiting the guilty
party from remarrying, and involving the status of the children of such party by a sub-
sequent marriage, see Dimpfel v. Wilson, 107 Md. 329.

For a ease involving the construction of this section in connection with the statute
of 12 Charles II., ch. 24, and passing on the question of the effect of a divorce upon the
right of a father to appoint a testamentary guardian, see Hill v. Hill, 49 Md. 455.