Mr and Mrs Legentil have been unhappily married for six years. Their life together has been a sad tale of domestic violence, drunkenness, infidelity and plain incompatibility. Get a divorce, would you say... They did.

You might be disappointed, however, to learn that Mr and Mrs Legentil are fictitious characters who were born in the imagination of the members of the Law Society of the University of Mauritius and that of the Mauritius Family Planning Association.

The Mauritius Family Planning and Welfare Association in collaboration with the UOM?s Law Society presented this simulation of a court case yesterday at the Mahatma Gandhi Institute to mark the World Population Day. The climax of the play that lasted an hour was the choice of the judge hearing the divorce; he was none other than Human Rights Commission Chairman, Dhiraj Seetulsingh.

The ?case?, according to the organizers, reflects the many divorce cases that are heard every Friday in the Supreme Court; the reasons for divorce are likewise a reflection of the many ?typical? reasons put forward by unhappy spouses ? battered wives, drunk husbands with mistresses, wives having lost all interest in performing their marital duties, neglect of duty towards children, forced abortion and, in that particular case, the transmission of the HIV virus (it seems the playwright went a bit wild with this one as the judge himself commented on this ?unusual? element that lawyers and petitioner alike weren?t able to prove).

Patricia Legentil averred that her husband wasn?t a good father and didn?t help her when she was pregnant nor after she had borne him two children, aged three and two. She also claimed that he had committed adultery and she knew this is so because she found a letter from his mistress in his pocket when she was doing the washing.

She added that her husband had subjected her to domestic violence throughout the duration of her marriage although she reported him to the police only once. Patricia Legentil further alleged that her husband had forced her to abort her third child and that he had infected her with the HIV virus that he had caught?while he sleeps around.?

The husband denied all but one of the charges ? he had to admit to adultery as his mistress was called upon to testify in court, which she readily did, admitting that she loved Avinash Legentil (a rare occurrence, commented Judge Seetulsingh). The defendant also admitted to beating up his wife ?only once?? he couldn?t deny it after the Protection Order Officer from the ministry of Women was called to testify in court ? but said: ?You know how women can get on your nerves sometimes and you can just lose it!?

<B>Such a display of their private lives</B>

Avinash Legentil ? whose bad temper was demonstrated when his wife?s lawyer called to the witness box the owner of his regular drinking joint who readily recounted how the husband regularly lost his temper after having had a drink too many and after his other drinking friends had made fun of him calling him a battered husband (that was his excuse ? that his wife liked to nag and so made his life miserable) ? also admitted to adultery but justified himself by saying: ?She refused to let me touch her and so I had to go elsewhere to get it.?

The husband claimed that he never knew his wife was pregnant with a third child and so could not have forced her to have an abortion and he denied having Aids (suggesting she caught it elsewhere) and even proposed to submit himself to a blood test to prove that he was HIV free. Yes, he drank, he said, but only because he worked hard and had to let his hair down and because he was miserable.

The actors did a good job of pretending to be embarrassed to have to display in such a way their private lives for all to hear and judge (which is exactly what happens in a real court where you have to justify your every action so that the court may decide who?s fault it was that the marriage didn?t work).

The best actor award went without doubt to the judge who actually gave a ruling, finding for the wife, whose testimony he found trustworthier than that of the husband. Judge Seetulsingh found that the husband had failed in upholding the duty that the Code Civil (law under which people are married) conferred upon him ? that of faithfulness and assistance to his wife. ?Adultery cannot be condoned and it is not sufficient for the respondent to say his life was miserable; he should have prayed for a divorce earlier if he wasn?t happy?, said the Judge.

Domestic violence and the fact that the father neglected his children seemed to be what aroused the Judge?s sympathy. And so Judge Seetulsingh pronounced a provisional decree of divorce ?aux torts exclusifs? of the husband.

Good entertainment though the play was (students from the MGI seemed greatly entertained by the nitty-gritties of the Legentil couple?s marital life), it is also a reflection on marriage. Why do people get married? When does it stop working? What does it take to make it work? But ? above all ? does it have to be that awkward to get a divorce?