GROUNDS FOR DIVORCE

Greymouth Evening Star, 18 August 1943, Page 2

GROUNDS FOR DIVORCE

COMMENT BY CHIEF JUSTICE

WELLINGTON, August 17

“I am perfectly sure that this restitution of conjugal rights business is all wrong,” said the Chief Justice (Sir Michael Myers) when hearing a long list of matrimonial cases in the Supreme Court to-day. “It is against all moral welfare of the community. I have spoken about it before, as have other learned Judges; but it is of no use any Judge saying anything about it. Nobody takes any notice.” His Honor was considering his judgment in a case in which a decree for restitution had been made in Wellington on June 1, the decree being served on the respondent on June 4. The decree ordered compliance within 14 days of service, which was June 18, and his Honor pointed out that the petition for a decree nisi was filed on June 25, only seven days after the respondent had failed to comply with the restitution decree. His Honor remarked that when the petitioner appeared in Court on June 1 in support of the petition for a restitution order he expressed a genuine wish for his wife to return to him. He questioned further the petitioner (who was a member of the armed forces and likely to be moved away from the Dominion at a moment’s notice) and then said that in the case under consideration there seemed to be reasonable justification for the sequence of date's, and he would therefore make no further comment; but would grant the decree prayed for. He had, in cases he had dealt with in the past, delayed the period after which a decree absolute might be moved where he felt there might be some doubt as to the bona tides of the original application for restitution of conjugal rights. CASES ARE A FARCE In a later petition to-day, when an application for an order lor the restitution of conjugal rights was before tne Court, and the Chief Justice asked the petitioner whether he genuinely desired the return of his wife, he received the answer “No.” Petitioner had given evidence that while serving with the forces in the Middle East he had received letters from his wife in which she told him she would not live with him on his return to the Dominion. When he was repatriated he went from Wellington to Auckland specially to plead with her'to return to him, but she refused.

His Honor said that in view of the petitioner’s answer that he did not desire the return of his wife he could not, in law, grant the decree. He must, he said, penalise him for his honesty. It was obvious that he had not, as some petitioners often were, been coached as to his answers from the witness box. “I remember .Mr. Justice Denniston saying that" these cases were a farce. They are a farce. I know it, and you know it,” said his Honor, addressing counsel engaged in the case. His Honor then permitted counsel to repeat the question to the petitioner, who on this occasion gave the answer “Yes.” His Honor, remarking that it was obviously a genuine application in which the petitioner had not realised the position when he had given the answer “No,” granted the order for restitution. Counsel then made reference to English law on matrimonial causes. The Chief Justice: We have gone a good deal further than England. In England non-compliance with an order for restitution may be used as a foundation for, but not as grounds lor, a divorce. The position here is that a person A, who has some money, can bring two petitions and obtain a divorce in a few months, while B. who is not so well off, has to wait for three years. That is the effect of the New Zealand law.