Divorce Petition Fails

Press, Volume CII, Issue 30152, 8 June 1963, Page 18

Divorce Petition Fails

(N.Z. Press Association) AUCKLAND, June 7.

A woman whose husband petitioned for divorce on the grounds of separation for not less than seven years and that the parties were not likely to be reconciled, opposed the petition because she believed reconciliation was still possible, and he was obliged to dismiss the petiitition, Mr Justice Woodhouse said in the Supreme Court at Auckland today. ' in a reserved judgment. The marriage had “irretrievably broken down and was a marriage in name only.” his Honour said He said he had no discretion to pronounce a decree in such a case.

The case concerned a petition for divorce by Andrew John Smith against Grace Christina Smith.

Mrs Smith had opposed the petition on the grounds that the parting had been brought about by the wrongful conduct of her husband.

The judgment said the marriage ran a comparatively uneventful course until 1947, when the husband formed an attachment for another woman.

She worked for him and had a flat which he had built in part of the home he occupied with his family. By this time she had become his mistress and that

fact was finally discovered by the respondent. This knowledge “shook" her greatly, but produced no immediate change in her relations with her husband in spite of his refusal to put an end to the liaison.

Eventually there were arguments about money matters, and these culminated in proceedings by the wife for maintenance.

Since that time the parties had occupied separate establishments and the petitioner had been living openly with the other woman.

The respondent explained that her apparent acquiescence in her husband's continued liaison after she had first learned of it was due to her desire to win back his affections and to retain for her children the companionship of their father. “She remains unshaken in her conviction that eventually he will return to her and she has said that she is still fond of him,” said his Honour. “I respect her views, and I accept her evidence as a genuine and sincere expression of these beliefs and an explanation for her attitude, but I am satisfied beyond any doubt that the possibility of a reconciliation can be completely disregarded."

His Honour ordered the husband to pay the wife's costs.