‘Marriage means obligations’

Press, Issue 33842, 14 May 1975, Page 18

‘Marriage means obligations’

“The unmistakable. message which ought to he conveyed to society by the legislature and the courts is that marriage involves obliga- > tions which ought to be seriously undertaken," the annual conference of the Australian and New Zealand Association of Law Students was told yesterday. Professor B. D. Inglis, professor of English and New Zealand law at the Victoria University of Wellington, gave a paper on “justice and divorce reform.” He said that there should not be too much haste in i getting rid of the traditional grounds for divorce based on matrimonial fault, adultery and desertion. “There you have at least overt acts which can be! 1 clearly and precisely identified; the established I defences to these grounds provide an ample safeguard i against injustice." said Pro- 1 fessor Inglis. "I think it is obvious that 1 there must be grounds for l separation or divorce based 1 on the fact that spouses,

.despite their best efforts, : have found their marriage < > intolerable. UNSYMPATHETIC i "Our message should be 1 ' that a spouse who has with-; 1 ! drawn from his or her obligations or has repudiated them, or has refused to approach them with a proper !sense of responsibility for; the interests of the other spouse, will not get a sympathetic reception. “We must be active to the serious social danger of a spouse being able to use the courts to profit at the other’s expense from a situation he. or she has created.” Professor Inglis said he defined the marriage obligations in general terms as a mutual and reciprocal sense, of loyalty, support, toler- , ance, consideration and co-! , operation, each spouse having I, a proper respect for the:, other’s identity, interests and feelings. “And I would add to this]J list the mutual obligation to(, establish a stable home and , a stable home life for any t children of the marriage. t “There is, I think, no It ground for encouraging any- ; one to believe that it should be any easier to escape from t matrimonial obligations than,;

it is to escape from any other obligations recognised! by the law. Indeed, matrimonial obligations must, if anything, be kss easy to escape from because there are children to be con-! sidered. BINDING "However the main point; i is that once they have been undertaken matrimonial obligations must be regarded as binding, and each spouse I is entitled to expect that the i other will faithfully and ; conscientiously observe them, or at least make a proper effort to do so within the limits of his or her! ability.” Professor Inglis said that 1 when approaching the questions of separation or divorce it had to be asked “in what, circumstances can a spouse ; be excused from further! compliance with his or her matrimonial obligations?” Professor Inglis said that 1 .every marriage at some time! ran into problems. Spouses! with a proper sense of obligation towards each other and! towards their children would; normally put themselves to I the task of overcoming these! problems. If they failed and the situa-; tion became hopeless the law. ishould provide a remedy. But'

'.others with a less responsible! ! approach, or with less re-, sourcefulness or imagination, ’ would tend to look for the! i! easy way out. ; It was only too easy for a • spouse to manufacture a state (of serious disharmony or to put reconciliation out by ;! refusing to reconcile on any i terms. I Professor Inglis said that [ his paper was intended to i suggest that many of the pre- . sent difficulties in a number I of areas of matrimonial law , had been caused by a failure !to pay sufficient heed to , fundamental principle and a . failure to approach some (matrimonial problems from! J the right direction. “We tend to be hardship-; !conscious, and of course the! relief of hardship is a laudable objective. But it is only .one very small aspect of family law, the underlying !purpose of which must surely !be to encourage stability in 1 every family unit. j “And does this not mean (that the obligations and ; duties in marriage must be seen to be respected by law, land not undermined or made meaningless by wellintentioned provisions which jin practice can make their I evasion only too easy and ! painless?” said Professor Inglis.