DIVORCE CAUSES

Hawera Star, Volume XLVII, 25 July 1928, Page 7

DIVORCE CAUSES

HIGH COURT POWERS. NEW ZEALAND LAW. AMEND ING HILL INTRODUCED. (By Telegraph—Special to The Star.) WELLING J ON, July 24. The Supreme Court ol TVew Zealand is given tne additional powers possessed by trie High Court ot England by a clause an tnc Divorce and Matrimonial Causes J3-il>l, .introduced by the Goveriiortoieneral’is message in the House of Representatives tins evening. The clause relates to alimony and maintenance is' taken from the English Act of 1925. It rids New Zealand law of the confusion created l by the; apparently conflicting (provisions of the Act of 1908. This Bill contains 58 clauses, and while primarily a consolidating measure, it amends the law in certain important respects, since it has been deemed wise to take advantage of the improvements made in the English Act. O’ne of these is the use qif the word “divorce” instead of dissolution of marriage. Failure to comply with a decree for the restitution of conjugal rights l is made the giound for judicial (separation, as it is in England. This also remains the ground for divorce in New Zealand. The .mile as to the retention of her domicile by a deserted wife, notwithstanding that her husband has changed his domicile, is extended so as to apply to the case or a wife who has been separated from her husband 'by am agreement or otherwise. The subject of oolluisuon has been cleared up, the Jaw being declared that except in the case of adultery, collusion is only a discretionary bar bo relief, it has also been made clear that connivance is a. bar in the case of adnltry only. This is necessary since it is absurd to talk about connivance when relief is sought on other grounds such as the existence of an agreement for sep aration.

Until the Divorce Act of 1898 was brought into operation, a wife could not obtain a divorce oil the grounds oi adultery only, .unless it was incestuous adultery, qr accompanied by .bigamy. She had to prove, in addition either cruelty or desertion for two years. The Act of 1898 altered the law on the subject and gave a. wife the right to obtain a divorce on the ground of adultery il committed after the Act of LB9S came into force. After a lapse of 29 years, it seems* unnecesisaiy to maintain the distinction . and it therefore iias been abolished. The chance of there being a case where a wife desired divorce- because her husband has committed adnltry prior to June 1,189 S, and not committed any matrimonial offence since as remote indeed. Although the Minister of Justice has not explained the Bill, to the House, an intelligent reading of the measure does not indicate that the grounds for divorc© -iii N©w Zealand liny© u©©n increased, only ten causes being mentioned: Adultery, wilful desertion, habitual drunkenness, .seven years imprisonment for murder Qr attempted murder of petitioner or children, or wounding or - causing them actual bodily harm, insanity (two classes) failure to comply with order for restitution of agreement for separation in force for' three years, and judical separation for a- similar period.