DIVORCE LAW

Hawera Star, Volume XLVII, 4 August 1928, Page 5

DIVORCE LAW

CONSOLIDATING MEASURE THE qHANGES PROPOSED ' THE MINISTER’S EXPLANATION. (By 'XVkgßiph—Press Association.) WELLINGTON. August 3. Yhe Hon. F. 4. Holies ten moved ill the House or Representatives to-day the second reading of the Divorce and Alatrioniat Causes Bill'. He said the ill was really a consolidating measure. L sua.lv in consolidating measure it waja tne duty of the compilers to adhere closely to the language of the existing statutes, otherwise some change might unintentionally be niacb in the law, butt, when they had to go back to, 1867, os ti.ev did in tills case, the language was .siightiy different in a. general way. i lie changes made in the law by this Bid wore slight, the following being the more .important:—• (a) Failure to comply with a decree for the lestitution of conjugal rights is madia a. ground, for judicial .separation. It is a. ground in Eng',and and is a gi-0-...n.d for dissolution in New Zealand. v'a) Distinction batwoen eases of adultery happening lK?foro and cases happening alter June 1, 1899, had been ■ Iv.-, idled until the Divorce Act of 1898 was brought into operation. On June 1, 1599. a wife could not obtain a divorce on this ground of adultery only, unless it was incestuous adultery or was accompanied by bigamy. She had to prove, in addition, either cruelty or . desertion for two years. The Act of 1898 altered the law ou the subject and. gave a wife a right to obtain a divorce on the grounds of adultery, if committed, after the Act of 1898 came into force. When the Acts were consolidated in 1908 it was considered necessary to maintain the distinction between case® happening before June 1, 1899, and. those happening after that dale, .but it ' seemed to be unnecessary after a la.pse of 20 years to maintain, the distinction. \ The only possible effect of the change would be to give a wife a right to divorce -in a case where her husband had. committed adultery before June 1, 1899. and had not committed any matrimonial offence since which would give his wife a .right to divorce. The chance of them being such a ca.se was remote indeed. If the distinction he abolished a® proposed, then Sections 22 and 23 of the Act of 1908 became unneres.ra.rv and they have been dropped. (c) The rule a® to ithe retention of her domicile: by a deserted wife, notwithstanding that her husband has changed his domicile, is extendod by clause 12 so as to apply to the case of a wife who has been separated from,her husband bv agreement or otherwise. (d) The subject of collusion has been cleared mo and the law declared to be that, except in a rase of adultery, collusion is only a discretionary bar to relief.

(e) It- has been made clear that connivance is a bar in a case of adultery only. This wa« necessary, for it was •absurd to. talk about connivance where relief was .sought on other grounds, as, for example, the existence of an agreement for separation. (f) Clause 3, dealing with alimony and maintenance, is taken from. .Section 190 of the English Act of 1925. It gets rid .of the confusion created) by the apparently conflicting provisions of Section 41 and 42 of. the Act of 1908, and gives tb.? Supra me Court additional powers possessed by the High Court in England. - ' (g) Section 29 of the Act of 1908 has been dropped. Tt appeared for the first t'm> mv the Act of IS9B. It was difficult to, know what it meant and- it v.xWd be better out of t-lio way. (It) The provisions contained in Sections 68. 69, 70 and 71 were unnecessarv and bad been dropped. They were taken, fo.r the most part from t-lie English Act of 1857. The English Act of If >2s does not- contain any such provisions. 8

(i) Section 74 of the- Act was unnecessary and had been dropped. Earlier •provisions, make clear the rights of a husband.

fix Section 5 of the amending Act of 1912 (relating-to the validity of certain marriages) has been omitted as spent.

The Lender of the Opposition said that- white the Bill cleared up the position of domicile of a. New Zealand wife, there wnn another class of wife for whom no provision was made. For instance. when the American fleet was in New Zealand waters some of the American sailors married New Zealand ~i:ls a,nd promptly deserted them. They '’ad no redress in this country because t:be : r h”sbnnd’s 'domicile was in AmerHo thought that class of case sho",ld be met. and ,he suggested that ‘■onie dfiw should lx> inserted i.n the Rill before it was finally .passed.

Arr T. M. Wilford said the law ;bo ild be altered so that a girl who was accused bv a wife of adultery with her. husband must be served with -a notice p-f that charge m that she might come :o the Court and defend herself. No such notice was now necpssairy and lie had previously tried to get the law amended, but the Government had not allowed him to do so. Generally he congratulated the Alibiister on his irevision of the law, but he would go further and ffive any woman .the right to divorce whose husband wais a habitual drunkard. Divorces were not increasing in New Zealand except in some of the cities, where men married “frying pan’’ .vives. and in those oases be thaiagnt the ground of divorce should lie indigestion. . The ATinister, in r?p\v, said he did not- think a consolidating Bill should be made the vehicle of creating .grounds •>.f divorce. There were, however, minor alterations in the law which, might be irortdonsd. Ti>e nil] was read a- second time and ••nVrvod to tlie Statutes Revision Committee.