[735] In two cases wives left their husbands for bad treatment. Occasionally the man repudiates his wife; and sometimes there are several changes or exchanges before a permanent choice is made. When, however, a union is once settled, it is not easily dissolved: MURDOCH, in _IX. Rep. of Bureau of Eth._, 411, 412. Similar freedom for both sexes prevails among the Eskimo about Bering Strait: NELSON, _ibid._, XVIII, Part I, 292.
[736] DORSEY, "Omaha Sociology," _III. Rep. of Bureau of Eth._, 261,262. For further examples of easy divorce among the Indians see TURNER, "Ethnology of the Ungava District," _ibid._, XI, 270 (Nenenot); _Report Smith. Inst._, 1885, 71 (Pawnees marry and unmarry at pleasure); ANCHIETA, "Informação," _Revist. Trim. Hist._, VIII, 254-62 (the woman leaves the man at pleasure in Brazil).
2. Passing to the opposite extreme, there are peoples with whom marriage is a relation absolutely indissoluble. Sometimes this is the case on sacramental grounds, implying usually considerable progress in religious ideas;[737] but it is also true of peoples standing on a very low plane of culture, such as certain of the Papuas of New Guinea, the Veddahs[738] of Ceylon, or the Niassers of Batu, where death alone is sufficient to dissolve the marriage bond.[739]
[737] The old Indie law does not recognize a proper divorce, though the husband may "supersede" his wife; but sometimes by the existing custom of Indian peoples it is allowed: KOHLER, in _ZVR._, III, 384, 386 ff.; VII, 236; XI, 169. _Cf._ FRIEDRICHS, _ibid._, X, 251; WESTERMARCK, _op. cit._, 525; LETOURNEAU, _op. cit._, 301, 302.
[738] SARASIN, _Die Weddas von Ceylon_, I, 459.
[739] POST, _Familienrecht_, 251, 252, following the researches of Wilken and Riedel. This rule applies, apparently, only to the Papuas of Geelvinkbai in New Guinea; elsewhere in that island the man may put away the woman at pleasure: KOHLER, "Ueber das Recht der Papuas auf Neu-Guinea," in _ZVR._, VII, 373. In general _cf._ WESTERMARCK, _op. cit._, 517.
3. Between these extremes of one-sided freedom and entire prohibition of divorce various intermediate phases appear. Sometimes the only method is mutual agreement of the parties. So, for instance, according to Post, among the Karo-Karo, a Batak tribe on the east coast of Sumatra, neither harsh mistreatment, wicked desertion, nor even adultery gives either the wife or the husband singly the right to demand a separation. Only in case of life-assault is one-sided divorce permitted; and this rule is perhaps a mitigation of the older and severer law.[740] In West-Victoria "a man can divorce his wife for serious misconduct, and even put her to death; but in every case the charge against her must first be laid before the chiefs of his own and his wife's tribes, and their consent to her punishment obtained. If the wife has children, however, she cannot be divorced. Should a betrothed woman be found after marriage to have been unfaithful, her husband must divorce her. Her relations then remove her and her child to her own tribe, and compel the father of the child to marry her, unless he be a relative. In that case she must remain unmarried. If a husband is unfaithful, his wife cannot divorce him. She may make a complaint to the chief, who can punish the man by sending him away for two or three moons; and the guilty woman is very severely punished by her relatives." But there are other ways of dissolving a marriage; and under some conditions the woman has a chance. Exchange of wives, when both are childless, is "permitted only after the death of their parents, and, of course, with the consent of the chiefs." A couple without children may separate by mutual consent; and "when a woman is treated with cruelty by her husband, she may put herself under the protection of another man, with the intention of becoming his wife. If he take upon himself the duty of protecting her, he must challenge her husband and defeat him in single combat in presence of the chiefs and friends of both parties." When a "husband knows that his wife is in love with another man, and if he has no objection to part with her, he takes her basket to the man's wuurn and leaves it. But as no marriage or exchange of wives can take place without the consent of the chief, the wife remains with her husband till the final great meeting, when the bargain is confirmed. This amicable separation does not create any ill feeling between the parties, as the woman is always kind to her first husband without causing any jealousy on the part of the second. Such transactions, although lawful, may not be approved of by the woman's relatives, and she is liable to be speared by her brother."[741]