SUPREME COURT Marriage Declared Null And Void

Press, Volume CVIII, Issue 31865, 18 December 1968, Page 15

SUPREME COURT Marriage Declared Null And Void

The validity of a marriage' in New Zealand which fol-1 lowed an action for the dissolution of one of the marriage party's previous Hungarian marriage was challenged in the Supreme Court yesterday before Mr Justice Wilson. Mr A. Hearn appeared for the petitioner. ( Mr H. Fulton, of Auckland, appeared for the respondent. After submissions from counsel his Honour ruled the names of the parties should not be published. His Honour said the action before him had begun when the petitioner had sought a divorce from her husband on the ground of adultery. The respondent, the husband in the New Zealand

marriage, in his cross-peti-tion, challenged the validity of the New Zealand marriage between himself and the petitioner on May 27 on the ground the petitioner was already married. He asked that the marriage in New Zealand be declared null and void. He also denied the adultery alleged. In line with recognised practice where a respondent alleged the marriage had been void from the beginning the answer had been considi ered first. Certificate Of 1950 ' The respondent produced, ■and the petitioner admitted i a certificate of her marriage

' in Hungary in 1950. Also produced was a judgment or decree of the competent Hungarian Court dated May 17, 1957. dissolving the petijtioner’s marriage to another and a further document which stated that, as the time i for appeal against the decree had elapsed, that decree had become of full effect. That document was dated June 15, 1957. i If the May 17 document . had been of full effect then the petitioner would have been free to marry the respondent in New Zealand on May 27, but if the document was the same as a decree ■ nisi in New Zealand she would not have been free till after June 15, 1957. His Honour said he had had the advantage of hearing

an expert on Hungarian law who had said the decree of May 17, 1957, was of no greater validity than a decree nisi in New Zealand law, and did not terminate the marriage. The marriage continued till the notification which, in the present case, was made on June 15, 1957. Confirmation of that evidence was shown on the marriage certificate which showed the marriage was finallv terminated on June 15. 1957. His Honour said he found the petitioner went through a form of marriage in New Zealand on May 27 when she was already married, but he accepted counsel’s assurance that the petitioner had believed she was free to marry. However, in New Zealand she was not competent to marry and that marriage was therefore void—in effect there was no marriage—his Honour said, in granting a decree of nullity. His Honour also made a declaration that the child of the marriage was deemed to be legitimate and ordered that the respondent should pay the petitioner’s cost which he fixed at $94.50, plus disbursements.