# Divorce Proceedings P-1642/76 ## Hearing record of 18 January 1977 — PDF pages 1–3 ### PDF page 1 — Record of the main hearing **Case:** P.1642/76 **Court:** District Court in Novi Sad **Date:** 18 January 1977 **Subject:** Divorce **Presiding judge:** Nikola Stepić **Lay judges:** Janošević Siniša and Konc Marija **Court clerk:** Ilonka Pardovicki **Plaintiff:** Lakatoš Vera, Novi Sad **Representative:** Lukač Agošton, attorney from Temerin **Defendant:** Lakatoš Pavle, Novi Sad The hearing begins at 9:00. The hearing is not public. The presiding judge opens the main hearing, announces the subject of the hearing and establishes who is present. For the plaintiff: in person; Lukač Agošton, attorney from Temerin. Counsel for the plaintiff withdraws the claim concerning Lakatoš Irena, as she has reached adulthood and will pursue her rights to maintenance in separate proceedings. Counsel reduces the claim concerning Lakatoš Ištvan and requests 600 dinars per month, calculated from the date the action was brought and for as long as the statutory conditions exist. The defendant does not oppose the claim as formulated. As regards fault, he asks the court to establish the fault of both parties, since the plaintiff is also at fault for the divorce. Regarding evidence that the plaintiff is at fault for the divorce, he requests a period of 15 days in which to provide evidence to the court. The court issues the following **ORDER**. ### PDF page 2 — Witness statements The witnesses shall be heard. #### Witness MOJSINOV SPASA Daughter of Jakšić Damjan, born in 1916 in Mol, from Novi Sad, Teodora Pavlovića Street no. 34, unrelated to the parties, having been warned, states: I have known the parties for 12 years. I know that they lived badly together. The defendant mainly stayed on the farmstead; in the last five years he was separated from the family and came only occasionally. The plaintiff went to him and asked him to return home and not live on the farmstead because the conditions there were poor. Four years ago, the defendant began living with Miletić Cveta and had a child with her. I heard that he also lived with a woman called Julka and that she had an abortion; that is what Julka told me. The defendant told me that he had quarreled with the plaintiff because she had not paid him for the milk he brought from the farmstead. Since then he had completely separated from the family. As far as I know, the plaintiff treated the defendant well as a wife. I know that she gave him money, helped with work on the farmstead and called him home. She lent him the money. The defendant denies having had relations with Julka. He states that this is an invention of the witness, with whom he is in a dispute because he had a court case against her. The witness does not claim expenses. #### Witness DIMIĆ ERŽEBET Daughter of Cegledi Peter, born in 1908 in Belo Blato, unrelated to the parties, having been warned, from Novi Sad, Koste Racina Street no. 19, states: I worked as a day laborer for the defendant. On the farmstead I saw Miletić Cvita, who lived with the defendant outside marriage and had a child with him, Milivoj, in 1974. I know that the defendant drank. The plaintiff is very hardworking and worked a great deal to acquire property. I know this because I have known them for about 20 years. There are no questions or objections. The witness does not claim expenses. #### Witness MILETIĆ CVITA Daughter of Jure, born in 1931 in the village of Bila Vlaka, Municipality of Benkovac, unrelated to the parties, having been warned, from Novi Sad, Miše Dimitrijevića no. 9, states: I worked as a day laborer on the defendant’s farmstead, began living with him and had a child with him, a son, Milivoj, in 1974. The witness does not claim expenses. A woman called Julka told me that she had begun living with the defendant. The court issues the following **ORDER**. ### PDF page 3 — Order, end of hearing and signatures The defendant is ordered to provide the court, within eight days, with the addresses and names of the witnesses he has announced. The main hearing is adjourned until **17 February 1977 at 8:30**. The parties and their representatives are summoned to attend, for the examination of the parties, by announcement of this order. Concluded at 9:45. **Presiding judge:** [signature] **Court clerk:** [signature] **Parties:** [signatures] *Transcript note: the first witness’s statement spells the mother’s given name “Cveta”; the next witness statement and the mother’s own identification say “Cvita”. These forms are preserved in their respective passages.* --- ## Subsequent hearing records and judgment *The page headings below retain the numbering of the earlier transcript. They are not the physical page numbers of the expanded PDF. In the expanded PDF, Pavle’s personal statement is on page 25 and the court’s findings about Cvita and their child are on page 33.* ## Page 2 Because of a change in the composition of the panel, the main hearing begins again (Article 304 of the Civil Procedure Act). Upon the proposal and with the consent of the parties, the court will not take the already presented evidence again, but will instead read the records from the previous main-hearing sessions at which the evidence had been presented. Counsel for the plaintiff maintains the lawsuit and the claim. Counsel for the defendant maintains the previous statements of the defense and motions. ## ORDER The following witnesses shall be heard: ### Witness MIJANOVIĆ DJORDJE Son of Vasa, born in 1926 in Novi Sad, unrelated to the parties, from Novi Sad, Cankareva 19, warned to tell the truth, states: I have known the parties for 30 years. Both are hardworking people. I know that the defendant drank, and that the plaintiff was angry with him because of that, especially because she belongs to the Pentecostal religious community, so his drinking bothered her even more. On one occasion we were unloading corn, the defendant was drunk, a sack of corn fell on him, knocked him down and pinned him. The plaintiff came over and broke his nose with a slipper. The slipper was wooden. I know that they separated 5–6 years ago. The defendant cultivated the land, and the plaintiff worked in the grain mill. She did not like to work on Sundays because of her religious conviction, so she was arrogant toward customers who came on Sundays. I know that the defendant was treated for alcoholism. For a period of time he did not drink at all. At that time they were living together in marriage. The witness does not request costs. ### Witness FEKETE FRANJA Son of Ivan, born in 1910 in Platičevo, unrelated to the parties, from Novi Sad, Đure Molnara no. 2, warned to tell the truth, states: For a year and a half I was engaged as a worker by the defendant, in market gardening, because the defendant has six jutra of garden land. That was from 1973 to 1975. The defendant is a hardworking man; he worked constantly on the land. At that time he did not drink. I asked him why no one from the family was helping him. He answered that this was simply how things were in their household, that they had two cashboxes. I remember when he became ill, the defendant told me to manage all the work on the estate even though he was married to the plaintiff. About their relationship, whether they argued or anything similar, I know nothing, because I saw them only a few times. --- ## Page 3 ... saw them together when the plaintiff came, very rarely, to the land, the farmstead. The defendant lived on the farmstead and slept in the stable with the livestock. He prepared food for himself because the plaintiff never brought him food. I know this because I carried it to him. There was a woodshed on the farmstead, above it a room for living rather than the stable. There were bedbugs. In the stable where the defendant slept, there was nothing with which he could cover himself. Usually, when a man cultivates land on a farmstead in the outskirts of Novi Sad, only 4–5 minutes from the house, he goes to his own house to sleep rather than sleeping with the livestock. Counsel for the plaintiff objects to the witness statement, claiming that the witness is biased because he worked for the defendant. The witness seeks 120 dinars for lost wages. The court issues the following ## ORDER The court awards the witness 120 dinars and orders the defendant to pay this amount to the witness within 8 days, under threat of enforcement. The court notes that the defendant paid 120 dinars to the witness in the courthouse. ### Witness BICOK MARGITA Daughter of Andrija, born in 1932 in Čurug, from Novi Sad, Teodora Kračuna 2, unrelated to the parties, warned to tell the truth, states: I am Hungarian, but I speak Serbo-Croatian well. I have known the parties for 6 years. I also had my own land near their land in the outskirts of Novi Sad. That is how I came to know the parties. The defendant told me that his marriage with the plaintiff had been disturbed from the beginning, that they were in constant disagreement. She complained to me about the defendant, saying that he used to drink; and the defendant complained to me about the plaintiff, saying that she was arrogant and sexually uninterested. I know that the plaintiff is a very hardworking woman. She works in the grain mill, but she did not cultivate the land. However, their relations are very strange. The defendant slaughtered pigs and took them to his family, while he cooked lunch for himself from offal. On the other hand, on one occasion the plaintiff sold meat to the defendant, around one kilogram. Evidently there was neither reciprocal giving nor what is customary in a marriage. Last year the defendant fell ill, so I sent a cart to bring him to the hospital. He was seriously ill. I did not find him either in his house or on the farmstead, but in some third house, in a terrible condition. My involvement in taking the defendant to the hospital and bringing him back was misunderstood by the plaintiff, who insulted me, failing to accept my purely human attitude toward a helpless sick man. While he was in the hospital, I helped with feeding the pigs. We had always been on good terms, as --- ## Page 4 ... neighbors. We lent each other money in times of need, and we repaid it honestly. The owner of the house where the defendant was lying informed me to come for the defendant; the plaintiff did not do that, although she knew where the defendant was and that he was ill. It was in the immediate vicinity, three houses away from the plaintiff's house. The defendant told me, in connection with the meat he had bought, that he had bought that meat from his lawful wife. During the time when he was ill, before the hospital, the defendant was not living extramaritally with Bicok, but with Cvita, with whom he has an extramarital child. No further questions. The witness does not request costs. The court issues the following ## ORDER The court will, by way of request, hear witnesses GABRIĆ MIKLOŠ and ETELKA before the Municipal Court in Subotica. The main hearing is adjourned for an indefinite period. A new hearing will be scheduled upon receipt of the requested examination. Completed at 9:45. --- ## Page 5 MUNICIPAL COURT IN SUBOTICA Ref. No. Pom.55/77 ## RECORD drawn up before the Municipal Court in Subotica on 8 June 1977, in a non-contentious matter PRESENT ON BEHALF OF THE COURT: Zvonimir Budimir – judge Tonka Malagurski – court clerk SUBJECT: Request of the District Court in Novi Sad, No. P.1642/76 It is noted that all summoned persons have appeared except attorneys Lukač Agošton and Helena Uzelac, who were duly summoned; the parties state that those attorneys will not attend today's hearing. The witnesses declare that they understand Serbo-Croatian well and do not require an interpreter. The court issues the following ## ORDER In the capacity of witnesses, Gabrić Etelka and Gabrić Mikloš shall be heard. ### WITNESS GABRIĆ ETELKA Housewife, born in Bačka Topola, daughter of Pala, 70 years old, residing in Subotica, Ivana Meštrovića No. 23, unrelated to the parties, cautioned, states: I know the parties relatively superficially, since we did not visit each other, and I know the plaintiff from a single conversation which lasted about three hours; that was our only contact. We were in contact with the defendant about ten times, but all of it concerned other matters, and there was little discussion of their life together as such. During the mentioned conversation with the plaintiff, she complained about the defendant and his behavior, but she did not say anything concrete as to why; it all came down to the fact that for a long time they had not been living well together, and, as I understood it, the main issue concerned finances, that is, why he bought the orchard from us. I do not know any particular details from their life. I even tried to persuade the plaintiff that she should reconcile with the defendant and find common ground with him, but she told me that this was impossible. I did not insist on particular details, and she did not explain what the specific reasons were why their marriage was not good. No questions. --- ## Page 6 ### WITNESS GABRIĆ NIKOLA Pensioner, born in Subotica, son of Paja, 72 years old, residing in Subotica, Ivana Meštrovića No. 23, unrelated to the parties, cautioned, states: I know the parties rather superficially, and I know Pavle because he bought from us an orchard with a house, and I know the plaintiff because she came after the sale asking for information since the defendant had bought that property from us. When the defendant came to negotiate, he brought with him a small child, and he said that he had “adopted” the child (remark: Pavle appears to use the term “adopted” here not in a strict legal sense, but colloquially, meaning that he had taken the child into his care; his next words confirm this), and that he had had the child with a woman who worked for them. He further said that he was married and that he had adult children with that wife. The next time we saw him, and when we told him that his wife had been to see us, he told us that he had not been needed by her before either, and that therefore, as he put it, he had “made a mistake with another woman and had a child”. I know the plaintiff, as I have said, because she made inquiries after we sold the property to the defendant, and that was the only contact between us. On that occasion she told us that during the marriage the defendant had maintained relationships with other women, and that this had disturbed their marital relations to such an extent that we did in fact try to persuade her that they should reconcile, but this remained unsuccessful because she maintained that reconciliation with the defendant was impossible, and she stated this categorically; we understood that she truly no longer wished to live with the defendant. There are no questions or objections. Completed at 12:30. Judge, [signature] Parties: [signature Lakatoš Vera] [signature Lakatoš Pavle] Court clerk: [signature] MUNICIPAL COURT IN SUBOTICA Ref. No. Pom.55/77 TO THE DISTRICT COURT NOVI SAD Re: P.1642/76 In compliance with the request, the record containing the testimony of witness Gabrić Nikola and others is hereby forwarded to the addressee for further proceedings. Subotica, 8 June 1977. Judge, Zvonimir Budimir, manual signature Certified as a true copy [signature over the court seal] Note: In the original, the word for “property” in the second paragraph was overwritten/struck through by typing marks; this has been normalized here for readability. The District Court in Novi Sad stamp dated 13 June 1977, placed across the middle of the page, has been omitted here in order to keep the text legible. --- ## Page 7 Case No. P-1642/76 ## Record of the Main Hearing Drawn up on 28 June 1977 before the Municipal Court in Novi Sad. Composition of the panel: President of the panel: Nikola Stepić Lay judges: Kovačević Jovan, Šućak Milan Court clerk: Janošević Miomira Parties: Plaintiff: Lakatoš Vera, Novi Sad Counsel: Lukač Agošton, attorney Defendant: Lakatoš Pavle, Novi Sad Counsel: Helena Uzelac, attorney Subject matter: divorce The hearing began at 11 o'clock. The hearing is public. The president of the panel opens the main hearing, announces the subject matter, and establishes that the following are present: For the plaintiff's side: personally, and Ilijić Raduško, attorney, substituting for attorney Lukaš Agošton. For the defendant's side: personally. Of the other summoned persons, none appeared. The plaintiff maintains the lawsuit and the claim. The defendant maintains the previous statements of the defense. In addition, he files a counterclaim and asks the court to dissolve the marriage through the exclusive fault of the plaintiff-counterdefendant. --- ## Page 8 ## Page 2 He bases the evidence for the counterclaim on the witnesses already heard, and in addition, within 8 days he will submit the names of new witnesses who know of the culpable conduct of the plaintiff toward him. The court issues the following ## ORDER The plaintiff is ordered to submit, within 8 days, evidence supporting the allegations set out in the counterclaim. The main hearing is scheduled for an indefinite date; a new hearing will be set after the submission is received, that is, after the expiry of the 8-day period. Completed at 12 o'clock. President of the panel – judge [signature] Parties [signatures] Court clerk [signature] Internal note: 1 September 1977 Novi Sad, 28 June 1977 [signature] --- ## Page 9 [Handwritten upper left: Eb. 1. IX] [Stamp and signature upper right; visible date: 1 July 1977; visible number: 118] DISTRICT COURT NOVI SAD Plaintiff: LAKATOŠ VERA, NOVI SAD [Attorney stamp: ATTORNEY / UZELAC HELENA / NOVI SAD / Vojvođanskih brigada 10 - Tel. 43-100] Defendant: LAKATOŠ PAL, NOVI SAD ## SUBMISSION regarding file no. P. 1642/76 In the legal matter under the above number, the defendant proposes the examination of the following witness: 1. Vukadinović Magdalena, Novi Sad, Trg Majke Jevrosime no. 1, regarding the circumstances set out in his counterclaim. Since the defendant considers that the plaintiff is exclusively responsible for the divorce, because she had neglected him for years and had not cared for him or looked after him at all for a full 10 years, he proposes that the court render the following ## JUDGMENT The marriage concluded between Lakatoš Vera of Novi Sad and Lakatoš Pal of Novi Sad shall be dissolved on the basis of Article 62 of the SAP Vojvodina Marriage Act through the fault of the plaintiff Lakatoš Vera, and she shall be ordered to pay the defendant the litigation costs within 15 days under threat of enforcement. Novi Sad, 30 June 1977. Lakatoš Pal --- ## Page 10 Case No. P-1642/76 ## Record of the Main Hearing Drawn up on 6 October 1977 before the Municipal Court in Novi Sad. Composition of the panel: President of the panel: Nikola Stepić Lay judges: Milovanović Vera, Pantelić Miloš Court clerk: Julijana Marić Parties: Plaintiff: Lakatoš Vera of Novi Sad, represented by Lukač Agošton, attorney Defendant: Lakatoš Pavle of Novi Sad, represented by Helena Uzelac, attorney Subject matter: divorce The hearing began at 8:30. The hearing is SECRET. The president of the panel opens the main hearing, announces the subject matter of the proceedings, and establishes that the following appeared: For the plaintiff's side: personally, and representative Lukač Agošton, attorney from Temerin. For the defendant's side: personally, and representative Helena Uzelac, attorney from Novi Sad. Of the other summoned persons, none appeared. Because of a change in the composition of the panel, the main hearing begins again. At the proposal of the parties and with their consent, the court will not take the already presented evidence again, but instead reads the records from the main-hearing sessions at which the evidence had been presented. Note: In the printed form, the word “public” was typed over and replaced with “SECRET”. --- ## Page 11 ## Page 2 Counsel for the plaintiff maintains the lawsuit and the claim. Counsel for the defendant maintains the previous allegations of the defense and the counterclaim. Both seek the exclusive fault of the opposing party. Counsel for the plaintiff explains the request that the court dissolve the marriage through fault, taking the view that the fact that the defendant fathered an extramarital child during the marriage points to his culpable conduct, because this led to the disturbance of relations in the marriage. It is particularly emphasized that a finding of fault is necessary for further proceedings concerning the determination of the holder of occupancy rights, in which fault plays a significant role. Counsel for the defendant also insists on the plaintiff's fault. He states that she had rejected him sexually since 1968, when she converted to a new religion which forbids sexual relations between a man and a woman. He states that in 1971 she threw him out of the house, so that the defendant had to live on the farmstead, which he had built himself. Completely separated, a heart patient, left to himself, he truly entered into life with another woman, with whom he fathered a child. Because of illness, an orchard was also purchased in Bački Vinogradi and leased out, because he cannot cultivate it himself. He returned to Novi Sad and lives in the stable of the parties' house even though one room in the house is completely empty. The parties' children know this situation; even the daughter of the parties is raising the defendant's child, because she understands the situation and the plaintiff's fault in her relations toward him. He proposes the examination of the parties' children as witnesses, namely KOPLJAN ROŽIKA, Zadruga 25, Novi Sad. Because of the illness of the witness, he withdraws the request to examine Vukadinović Magdalena. The court issues the following ## ORDER The witness Vukadinović Magdalena will not be heard. Counsel for the plaintiff disputes the allegations of the defense insofar as they are contrary to the plaintiff's allegations. Above all, he emphasizes that the breakdown of marital relations occurred in 1975 and not in 1971, and that it occurred because of the defendant's extramarital child. The reason is therefore moral and not material in nature. He claims that the defendant lives in Bački Vinogradi in a six-room house, part of which he let to his sister free of charge. He only comes to Novi Sad, spends the night in the stable, especially because the house is small and does not satisfy the needs either of the plaintiff or of her children with whom she lives in the house. It is undisputed between the parties that the defendant will pay maintenance for the minor Ištvan in the amount of 700 dinars per month. It is also undisputed that the plaintiff receives a net monthly amount of 860 dinars in rent for the garages and the laundry room, that she pays tax on that amount in the sum of 940 dinars annually, or 78 dinars monthly, so that the net income on this basis is 782 dinars, or 390 dinars monthly for each party. By mutual agreement, that amount... --- ## Page 12 ## Page 3 ... represented the defendant's share for the maintenance of the minor Ištvan in the amount of 390 dinars per month. Since the defendant's obligation to contribute 700 dinars per month for the maintenance of the minor Ištvan is undisputed, the remaining obligation of the defendant is to pay, as his share of the contribution for the maintenance of the minor Ištvan, 310 dinars per month, starting from the date of filing of the claim and continuing thereafter for as long as the legal conditions exist. The court issues the following ## ORDER The main hearing is adjourned until 21 October 1977, beginning at 9 o'clock, to which the parties are summoned by the pronouncement of this order for their examination, together with the parties' attorneys, while in the capacity of witnesses the court will summon: 1. Lakatoš Iren, and 2. Lakatoš Ištvana, at the plaintiff's address, and 3. Kopljan Rožiku, at Zadruga 25, Novi Sad, by written summons. Completed at 9:40. President of the panel – judge [signature] Court clerk [signature] Parties [signature Lukač Agošton] [signature] [signature Lakatoš] [signature Lakatoš Vera] Note: Next to witness numbers 1, 2, and 3, handwritten check marks appear in the original. On the right side in the upper part of the text, there is also a handwritten line/mark. --- ## Page 13 Case No. P-1642/76 ## Record of the Main Hearing Drawn up on 21 October 1977 before the Municipal Court in Novi Sad. Composition of the panel: President of the panel: Nikola Stepić Lay judges: Milovanović Vera, Pantelić Miloš Court clerk: Julijana Marić Parties: Plaintiff: Lakatoš Vera, Novi Sad, represented by Lukač Agošton, attorney Defendant: Lakatoš Pavle, from Bački Vinogradi, represented by Helena Uzelac, attorney Subject matter: divorce The hearing began at 9 o'clock. The hearing is SECRET. The president of the panel opens the main hearing, announces the subject matter of the proceedings, and establishes that the following appeared: For the plaintiff's side: personally, and representative Lukač Agošton, attorney from Temerin. For the defendant's side: personally, and Helena Uzelac, attorney from Novi Sad. Of the other summoned persons, none appeared. Because of a change in the composition of the panel, the main hearing begins again. At the proposal of the parties and with their consent, the court will not take the already presented evidence again, but instead reads the records from the hearings at which the evidence had been presented. Note: In the printed form, the word “public” was typed over and replaced with “SECRET”. The pre-printed “Municipal” in the court designation was crossed out, leaving the hearing recorded as before the District Court in Novi Sad. --- ## Page 14 ## Page 2 In response to the court's question, the parties and witnesses declare that they speak Serbo-Croatian well and that they do not require an interpreter in the proceedings. The witnesses Lakatoš Iren, Lakatoš Ištvan, and Kopljan Rožika are informed of the privilege under Article 238 of the Civil Procedure Act. Lakatoš Iren and Lakatoš Ištvan state that they will avail themselves of the privilege under Article 238 of the Civil Procedure Act and that they do not wish to testify. Witness Kopljan Rožika, a child of the parties, states that she wishes to testify. The court issues the following ## ORDER Kopljan Rožika shall be heard. ### WITNESS KOPLJAN ROŽIKA, that is ROŽA Daughter of father Pavle, born in 1955 in Novi Sad, housewife, completed eight grades of school, from Novi Sad, Zadruga 35, states: As far as I know, my parents have not been getting along for a long time, somewhere around 7–8 years back. I know that there were disagreements about the education of the female children, because my father was against schooling and my mother was in favor of schooling. It has been at least six years since they separated. My mother ran the grain mill and my father managed the garden. They separated economically; each had his or her own income and expenses and managed them independently. My impression is that this was first because of taxes, so that everyone would know what belonged to whom, and that later it became a habit. They lived together formally. They borrowed money from each other, depending on who needed it. I know that the plaintiff demanded money, that is income from the garden, and that the defendant did not bring it because the garden often did not yield, so he brought only produce, which was not enough for the plaintiff. Their intolerance toward each other is deep and, as I heard from them, dates back to the very first year of the marriage, which they nevertheless maintained because of the children. I know that the defendant had a child with a female laborer. He told me about that child and about that relationship with the laborer. He told me that he had been forced to live with her because he had no one to help him on the farmstead, especially since he was ill. He came to love the child. The child is in my care. He pays me 1,000 dinars per month. From time to time he brings fruit, vegetables, and meat. While the defendant was on the farmstead, the plaintiff did not cook for him or bring him food. I left the house five years ago. While I was still at the house and the defendant was on the farmstead, when he came to Novi Sad he slept in the house. I heard that for about a year now, when he comes home to Novi Sad, he sleeps in the stable. The hut in the garden, which the defendant cultivated, was made of wattle plastered with mud. It was cold and unsuitable for winter living. --- ## Page 15 ## Page 3 When the defendant was in the hospital, at the Institute, I know that the mother visited him only once. As far as I remember, during the father's illness it was not the plaintiff-mother who handled the work in the garden, but rather the defendant's brother. On one other occasion, when the defendant was in the hospital, the last time, my brother Ištvan took him there. Two years ago, I know that my father brought a fattened piglet to the house for slaughter. Whether he brought such things before that, I do not know, because I was in the Federal Republic of Germany. The marriage was otherwise unstable, but when the extramarital child was born, the relations became completely disturbed. The plaintiff claimed that this need not have happened, while the defendant claimed that it had to happen because he was ill, alone, without help, and that he had no other way out. Counsel for the plaintiff objects to the witness testimony insofar as it is contrary to the allegations of the lawsuit. He especially emphasizes that the witness is speaking this way because the defendant promised her the use of half of the house if he wins this case. The witness denies these accusations by the plaintiff's counsel. The court issues the following ## ORDER The main hearing is adjourned until 26 October 1977, beginning at 9:30, to which the parties and their attorneys are summoned for examination by pronouncement of this order. Completed at 10 o'clock. --- ## Page 16 Case No. P-1642/76 ## Record of the Main Hearing Drawn up on 26 October 1977 before the District Court in Novi Sad. Composition of the panel: President of the panel: Nikola Stepić Lay judges: Popović Sofija, Petrović Lazar Court clerk: Julijana Marić Parties: Plaintiff: Lakatoš Vera of Novi Sad, represented by Lukač Agošton, attorney Defendant: Lakatoš Pavle of Novi Sad, represented by Helena Uzelac, attorney Subject matter: divorce The hearing began at 10:20. The hearing is SECRET. The president of the panel opens the main hearing, announces the subject matter of the proceedings, and establishes that the following appeared: For the plaintiff's side: personally, and representative Lukač Agošton, attorney from Temerin. For the defendant's side: personally, and Vukadin Popović, attorney from Novi Sad, substituting for attorney Helena Uzelac from Novi Sad. Of the other summoned persons, none appeared. Because of a change in the composition of the panel, the main hearing begins again. At the proposal of the parties and with their consent, the court will not take the already presented evidence again, but instead reads the records from the hearings at which the evidence had been presented. Counsel for the plaintiff maintains the lawsuit and the claim. Counsel for the defendant maintains the allegations of the defense. Note: In the heading, the pre-printed designation of the lower court was crossed out so that the record remains under the District Court. The word “public” was typed over and replaced with “SECRET”. --- ## Page 17 ## Page 2 The court issues the following ## ORDER The parties shall be heard. ### Plaintiff LAKATOŠ VERA née Guljaš, daughter of Guljaš Stevan, born in Senta on 22 February 1931, Hungarian woman, completed eight grades of elementary school, first marriage, mother of three children from this marriage, from Novi Sad, Trg Majke Jevrosime no. 3, states: The defendant began drinking in 1955. At first it was harmless, because he was a likeable drunk. However, when it got out of hand, he had to be treated for alcoholism in 1957. Despite treatment, he did not stop drinking, so in 1966 he was treated again, without success. Because of this we argued, especially since these were expenses. He began cheating on me with other women, about which neighbors informed me. We also argued because of that, especially since the defendant was jealous without reason. All of this led to our growing apart, because we lived only in a formal marriage for the sake of the children. From 1966, by agreement, I managed the grain mill and the defendant cultivated the land. At first, we put revenues and expenses into a common cashbox. However, in 1972 or 1973 we separated economically as well. He spent most of his time on the land near Novi Sad, while I was in the grain mill. He came home, but we were economically separated, so that the defendant managed all income and expenses from the land, while I managed those from the grain mill. From 1973 onward, he stayed on the land more than in the house; he rarely came home to sleep. The defendant built a hut of wattle and mud, with two rooms, and lived there most of the time. He became attached to another woman and fathered a son with her. After the birth of the child, complete discord arose; he even stopped sleeping with me, and we no longer had any contact. No questions. ### Defendant LAKATOŠ PAVLE son of Stjepan, born 25 January 1928 in the village of Hrtkovci, Municipality of Ruma, farmer, Hungarian, completed one grade of elementary school, from Novi Sad, Trg Majke Jevrosime no. 3, states: From the very beginning the plaintiff was harsh toward me. She was wilful and difficult in character; everything always had to be her way. In 1956 or 1957 she began rejecting me sexually, so I began to drink and to cheat on her. We argued, and the plaintiff insulted me, telling me that I was a peasant from... --- ## Page 18 ## Page 3 ... with one grade of elementary school. We did not agree even on economic matters. In 1968 she ordered me to take care of the land, while she would take care of the grain mill, and so we also divided economically at that time. She charged me for bran for the pigs, although the corn came from our land and the mill was ours; besides that, I brought fattened pigs home. This relationship also affected our children, so when they were on the land in 1971, I paid them for seven days as day laborers. In 1973 we stopped living a sexual life. I rarely came home. After leaving the hospital, abandoned by everyone, while the children were on school holidays and I was still not healed, I began living with another woman, a laborer on the land. I fathered a son with her. After the expropriation of the land by the Novi Sad Municipal Assembly, for which I received compensation of 120,000 dinars, in March 1976 I bought two jutro of land—an orchard—and a building in Bački Vinogradi for 245,000 dinars. I have still not paid the purchase price. I am ill, I pay for the cultivation of the land—the orchard—and I do as much as I can around the sale and transport of fruit. Since I switched to working the land, from 1968 onward, the plaintiff did not bring me food nor did she wash for me, and from 1973 onward I did not even change clothes anymore. We washed on the land. We also cooked there, and Cvita, the woman with whom I had begun living, also helped with that. I was in hospital treatment twice, in 1973, when the plaintiff visited me from time to time, and the second time in 1976, when I became seriously ill. She came once, while I was in the shock room, and asked me what property I would leave to her; I threw her out. When I recovered, after two weeks, she came again and asked how she might correct her earlier behavior. I told her: in no way, and that we no longer had any relations. The court reads the extract from the marriage register of the People's Committee of the City of Senta, no. 231/51 of 17 November 1951; it reads the extract from the birth register of the Municipality of Novi Sad, no. 1595/62 of 3 August 1962; it reads the certificate of the Svetozar Marković “Toza” Primary School, Novi Sad; it reads the certificate of the Novi Sad Municipal Assembly, no. 05-437/2-1317 of 23 December 1975. The parties have no further evidentiary motions. The court issues the following ## ORDER The evidentiary proceedings are concluded. The main hearing is closed. Decision in writing. Completed at 11:35. Note: In the original, several letters are typed over one another and appear blurred. In the part listing the documents read into the record, “čitanvere- / nje” appears instead of the expected “čita uvere- / nje”. --- ## Page 19 Judgment in the name of the people DISTRICT COURT IN NOVI SAD Ref. No. P-1642/76 Date: 26 October 1977 [Rectangular stamp: Registered in the Municipal Court; handwritten date 4 December 1977; signature] [Handwritten note: XIII - A - 6] The District Court in Novi Sad, sitting in a panel composed of Judge Nikola Stepić as presiding judge, and lay judges Popović Sofija and Petrović Lazar as members of the panel, in the divorce matter of the plaintiff Lakatoš Vera, from Novi Sad, Trg Majke Jevrosime no. 3, represented by Lukač Agošton, attorney from Temerin, against the defendant Lakatoš Pavle, from Novi Sad, Trg Majke Jevrosime no. 3, represented by Helena Uzelac, attorney from Novi Sad, concerning divorce, the value of the dispute for court-fee purposes being 2,000 dinars, on 26 October 1977, rendered, without pronouncing publicly, the following: ## JUDGMENT I – The marriage concluded before the registrar of the People's Committee of the City of Senta on 17 November 1951, entered in the marriage register under no. 231/1951, between Lakatoš Pavle, son of Stjepan, born on 25 January 1928 in Hrtkovci, Municipality of Ruma, and Lakatoš Vera-Terezija, née Guljaš, daughter of Guljaš Stevan, born in Senta on 22 February 1931, is DISSOLVED BY THE COURT on the basis of Articles 60 and 62 of the SAP Vojvodina Marriage Act, through the mutual fault of the parties. II – The minor child of the parties, Lakatoš Ištvan, born in Novi Sad on 3 August 1962, is AWARDED BY THE COURT for custody, upbringing, and maintenance to the mother, Lakatoš Vera-Terezija, née Guljaš. III – The defendant, Lakatoš Pavle, the father, is obliged to pay, as his share of the contribution for the maintenance of his son Ištvan, 310 dinars per month, beginning on 16 November 1976, as the date of filing of the action, and continuing so long as the legal conditions exist, in advance by every tenth day of the month, into the hands of the child's mother Lakatoš Vera-Terezija, née Guljaš; any accrued installments are to be paid in a lump sum within 15 days, all under threat of enforcement. IV – Each party bears its own costs. --- ## Page 20 ## Page 2 ## Reasoning In the lawsuit of 16 November 1976, the plaintiff stated that in the long-standing marriage there had been alienation between the spouses, especially because they had separated economically and spatially, with the defendant cultivating the land and the plaintiff conducting the business of the grain mill; that the defendant had begun living with another woman, with whom he had fathered a child; and she therefore sought that the court dissolve the marriage through the exclusive fault of the defendant. As regards maintenance of the child—the minor Ištvan—she specified her claim at the main-hearing session of 6 October 1977. In the lawsuit she also requested that the court order the defendant to pay the litigation costs. The defendant did not oppose the divorce, but sought that the court find mutual fault, because the plaintiff was also to blame for the breakdown of the marriage. He agreed regarding the maintenance of the minor Ištvan after the clarified claim of 6 October 1977. Reconciliation of the spouses was unsuccessful, because the parties are categorical in demanding that the marriage be dissolved, especially since they are separated and the defendant has an extramarital child. The court conducted the evidentiary proceedings by reading the extract from the marriage register of the People's Committee of the City of Senta no. 231/1951; the extract from the birth register of the Municipality of Novi Sad no. 1595/62 of 3 August 1962; the certificate of the Primary School “Svetozar Marković-Toza,” Novi Sad, of 3 November 1976; the certificate of the Novi Sad Municipal Assembly no. 05-437/2-1317 of 23 December 1975; by hearing the parties; by hearing the witnesses Mojsinov Spasa, Dimić Eržebet, Miletić Cvita, Mijatović Đorđe, Fekete Franja, Bicok Margita; by taking requested testimony from Gabrić Etelka and Gabrić Nikola; and by hearing witness Kopljan Roža; and on the basis of this evidentiary proceedings and the facts undisputed between the parties, it established the following FACTUAL STATE: The parties concluded marriage before the registrar of the People's Committee of the City of Senta on 17 November 1951. Three children were born in the marriage, two now of full age; the minor Lakatoš Ištvan was born on 3 August 1962. From the very beginning of the marriage, disagreements arose because of the different natures of the parties. The plaintiff is wilful, inclined to giving orders, a stronger personality, sexually uninterested, and did not tolerate the defendant's occasional drunkenness—which at first was even amusing to her—but later developed into alcoholism. The defendant was treated for alcoholism, without success, and all this led to quarrels and the separation of the spouses, so that the defendant increasingly withdrew into himself and cheated on the plaintiff with other women, which she did not tolerate. She insulted him, calling him a peasant (pejoratively), physically attacked him, and broke his nose. Such relations also led to economic separation. Go... --- ## Page 21 ## Page 3 ... from 1968 onward, the plaintiff took over the economic management connected with the grain mill, while the defendant cultivated land about 4 km from Novi Sad. They completely separated their assets and behaved toward one another as though they were strangers (the plaintiff sold bran to the defendant, sold him meat, etc.). The defendant came home very rarely; in the final years the plaintiff did not cook for him, nor wash for him, so he organized all of this on the land, building a hut of wattle and mud, unsuitable for winter habitation. In recent years, the plaintiff did not even allow the defendant into the house, and he slept in the stable when he came from Bački Vinogradi. From the compensation for the expropriated land, the defendant bought two jutro of vineyard and a house in Bački Vinogradi, where he engages in fruit growing, mainly by leasing out the orchard, because he is ill and a serious heart patient. After the first hospitalization, because of heart disease, abandoned and without visits, while his brother managed the cultivation of the land, he began living with the laborer Miletić Cvita, with whom he also fathered a child. This child is being cared for by the parties' daughter, Kopljan Roža, for which the defendant pays 1,000 dinars per month and also provides foodstuffs. These relations between the spouses were also reflected in the upbringing of the children, so the defendant paid the children wages like the others when they came to help him on the land—the garden in the vicinity of Novi Sad. The definitive breakdown of the marital union occurred in 1976, when, in the hospital, the plaintiff asked the defendant what he would leave to her from the property when he died, whereupon the defendant expelled her from the hospital. After recovery, after two weeks, the plaintiff asked the defendant how she might correct her earlier behavior, to which the defendant replied that she could not do so in any way and that there would no longer be any relations. The parties agreed, regarding the support of the minor Ištvan, that the income from the garages would be divided and that this income would constitute each spouse's share in supporting the minor Ištvan, amounting to 390 dinars net, an amount intended for Ištvan. On the basis of the thus established factual state, it was necessary to decide as stated in the operative part. In the view of this court, in the present case, the conditions under Articles 60 and 62 of the SAP Vojvodina Marriage Act were met. Namely, from the conduct of the parties, from the very beginning of the marriage, especially in the last several years, it is obvious that common life became unbearable for both spouses to such an extent that further maintenance of the marriage became impossible. However, both spouses are to blame for the divorce. The defendant is responsible because he drank, because he cheated on the plaintiff, because he began living with another woman and fathered a son with her. On the other hand, the plaintiff is also responsible for the divorce because she is wilful, insulted the defendant, beat him, did not care for him when he moved to live on the land, allowing him to live in a hut built of wattle and mud and now to sleep in the stable of the house, and because she rejected him sexually, thus she herself also contri- --- ## Page 22 ## Page 4 ... contributed to making the common life so unbearable that further maintenance of the marriage became impossible. Because of this, the court, by applying the cited provisions, decided as set out in item I of the operative part. Bearing in mind the interest of the child, the minor Ištvan, who is continuously with the mother and attends school in Novi Sad, this court, by applying Article 10 of the SAP Vojvodina Law on Relations between Parents and Children, decided as set out in item II of the operative part. Given the agreement of the parties regarding the maintenance of the minor Ištvan, this court ordered the defendant to pay 310 dinars per month, because the plaintiff collects the difference up to 700 dinars, which is his obligation, from the rent of the garages. Therefore, the court, by applying Articles 7 and 49 of the SAP Vojvodina Law on Relations between Parents and Children, decided as set out in item III of the operative part. The court fully accepted the written evidence, because there is no reason to doubt its authenticity. Furthermore, the statements of the parties and of the examined witnesses were also accepted, because all of them together speak of the culpable conduct of both spouses. The court bases its decision on costs on the provision of Article 87 of the SAP Vojvodina Marriage Act. On the basis of everything stated, it was necessary to decide as set out in the operative part. President of the panel – judge Nikola Stepić, manual signature Certified as a true copy: [signature] ## Instruction on legal remedy An appeal against this judgment may be lodged within 15 days from the date of service, to the Supreme Court of Vojvodina, through this court.