Virginia Code
Va. Code Ann. § 20-94 (2026)
Effect of cohabitation after knowledge of adultery, sodomy or buggery; lapse of five years
✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
VA-LISlaw.lis.virginia.gov
JustiaTitle on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
When the suit is for divorce for adultery, sodomy, or buggery, the divorce shall not be granted, if it appear that the parties voluntarily cohabited after the knowledge of the fact of adultery, sodomy or buggery, or that it occurred more than five years before the institution of the suit, or that it was committed by the procurement or connivance of the party alleging such act.
Code 1919, § 5110; 1975, c. 644.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 14
cases, 1963–2002 · leading case: Petachenko v. Petachenko, 350 S.E.2d 600 (Va. 1986).
Petachenko v. Petachenko, 350 S.E.2d 600 (Va. 1986). “In Tarr , we construed the predecessor to Code § 20-94, which provides that a divorce based on adultery shall not be granted “if it appear that the parties voluntarily cohabited after the knowledge of the fact of adultery.”
Colley v. Colley, 129 S.E.2d 630 (Va. 1963). “Tarr, supra, dealt with § 5110 of the 1942 Code (Michie), now § 20-94 of the 1950 Code, providing that when a suit for a divorce is for adultery, it shall not be granted if the parties voluntarily cohabited after knowledge of the adultery.”
McKee v. McKee, 145 S.E.2d 163 (Va. 1965). “1960), § 20-94, reads thus: “Effect of cohabitation after knowledge of adultery; lapse of five y ears.”
Vardell v. Vardell, 302 S.E.2d 41 (Va. 1983). “* In granting the initial injunction and subsequently extending its term, the trial court implicitly decided that the wife presented facts sufficient to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood that her health and safety would be endangered if the parties remained in the home…”
Yane v. Yane, 8 Va. Cir. 336 (Henrico Cir. Ct. 1987). “The court recognizes that the Supreme Court has given the phrase "voluntarily cohabited", as used in Section 20-94, a different meaning than that being given by the court in this case.”
Higgs v. Higgs, 12 Va. Cir. 509 (Warren Cir. Ct. 1983). “In construing Section 20-94, which makes voluntary cohabitation after knowledge of adultery a bar by way of condonation to a divorce suit on the grounds of adultery, that case found "cohabited" as used in that statute to mean sexual intercourse.”
Moran v. Moran, 12 Va. Cir. 340 (Roanoke County Cir. Ct. 1988). “By sexual relations it is assumed that intercourse is intended; kissing, it should be noted, could be described as a sexual relation.”
Reel v. Reel, 12 Va. Cir. 482 (Frederick Cir. Ct. 1981). “In construing § 20-94, which makes voluntary cohabitation after knowledge of adultery a bar by way of condonation to a divorce suit on the grounds of adultery, that case found "cohabited" as used in that statute to mean sexual intercourse. § 20-91(9) establishes the ground for…”
Carol H Lee, Sr v. Mary Y Lee (Va. Ct. App. 2002). “" He argued that "the evidence offered by" wife had failed to address all "issues set out in" Code § 20-94. Specifically, he asserted that "the evidence does not deny that the alleged adulterous behavior was committed by the procurement or connivance of [wife].”
Deborah M. Fickett v. George L. Fickett (Va. Ct. App. 2002). “Consequently, all other issues are rendered moot. To be actionable, adultery must occur within five years before the institution of the suit for divorce and must be proved by clear and convincing evidence.”
Epperson v. Epperson, 15 Va. Cir. 39 (Spotsylvania Cir. Ct. 1987). “Still, further, all or most of the pre-1985 acts are barred by Virginia Code § 20-94. Also see Tarr v. Tarr, 184 Va.”
Huddle v. Huddle, 145 S.E.2d 167 (Va. 1965). “1960), § 20-94, reads thus: “Effect of cohabitation after knowledge of adultery; lapse of five years.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.