MAINTENANCE OF FORMER WIFE

Press, Volume LXXII, Issue 21813, 19 June 1936, Page 16

MAINTENANCE OF FORMER WIFE

DIVORCE OBTAINED IN 1931

CASE BEFORE THE COURT OF APPEAL tFRKSS AS3OCIATIO* TELEOBIM.) WELLINGTON, June 18. The Court of Appeal to-day heard the case of Alexander Pooley v. Violetta Irene Pocley. In September, 1931, Violetta Irene Pooley, of Auckland, obtained a divorce from her husband, Alexander Pooley, and custody of their child. About that time the husband agreed to pay his wife £2 a week towards the maintenance and support of herself and the child. This amount was paid regularly until some time in 1934, when it was reduced to £1 10s a week. A further reduction was made to £1 a week last January, when the respondent took proceedings for permanent maintenance. On March 12, Mr Justice Fair held that the respondent was entitled to maintenance, which he fixed at £1 10s a week. The appellant husband then obtained leave to appeal in forma pauperis from this judgment. Mr James, for the appellant, stated that a question of general importance was involved: How long after a decree absolute had the court power to make an order for permanent maintenance? Counsel submitted that the learned trial judge had drawn certain wrong inferences of fact and had acted erroneously in law in awarding permanent maintenance to the respondent some four years after the decree absolute.

On the bench were the acting-Chief Justice, Mr Justice Reed, and Mr Justice Smith, Mr Justice Johnston, and Mr Justice Northcroft.

On behalf of the respondent, Mr R. A. Singer contended that, as cases showed that an application for permanent maintenance could successfully be made after a decree absolute, the period of time within which an application must be made was a matter for the discretion of the judgft

taking into account all the circumstances of the case. The only reasons which a wife could put forward to explain the delay were that she was ignorant of her rights, or that she was lulled into a position of false security because her husband had actually been paying her maintenance over a long period. The duty of the trial judge was to consider the facts. Having considered these, it was for him to decide whether he had a right to award maintenance. The mere lapse of time was not the deciding factor. All revelant matters had to be looked at. The court reserved its decision after a brief reply by Mr James.