DIVORCED WIFE'S MAINTENANCE

Evening Star, Issue 20421, 28 February 1930, Page 1

DIVORCED WIFE'S MAINTENANCE

IF HUSBAND MARRIES AGAIN AN IMPORTANT POINT. UsnitD Pems Association.] GISBORNE, February 27. An interesting point in divorce law was raised in the Supremo Court today before Mr Justice Blair during the hearing of a motion for a decree absolute. John Henry Buzza (Mr Coleman) was the applicant, and Louise Mary Buzza (Mr. Burnard) opposed the motion. . Mr Burnard stated that the point raised was one of considerable importance in divorce practice. The petitioner was a working man with an aveiage working man’s means. Should the decree be made absolute he might marry, and then be unable to maintain, both his new and his divorced wife. The latter would thereby be considerably prejudiced. The respondent had not opposed the making of a decree ■ nisi, because she could not deny there, had been three years’ separation by mutual agreement, under which she was to receive 25s per week. Her right to maintenance w’ould still continue should the decree be made absolute. but_ if the husband married again he might be unable to continue the payments. Mr Coleman contended that under Section 18 of the Act tho petitioner had an absolute right to a decree absolute. It was within respondent s rights to Obtain ah order for maintenance, but that was all she was entitled to. In effect if the decree was refused it would moan that a rich man could obtain a decree on the grounds of mutual separation, but a poor man could not. Mr Burnard replied that the maintenance of a wife had always been iecogniscd as a primary obligation of marriage, and that until r -nt legislation permitted divorces on the grounds of three years’ separation a husband had always been liable to maintain an innocent wife. It was surely not intended that the law should diminish the husband’s obligation. Commenting that the matter was of considerable importance, His Honour reserved his decision, and stated that he would probably consult with bis brother