MATRIMONIAL OBLIGATIONS.

Marlborough Express, Volume XXXI, Issue 108, 12 May 1896, Page 4

MATRIMONIAL OBLIGATIONS.

1 Two cases m which wiv63 sued their husbands for maintenance were heard at Invercargill last week. In both cases (reports the Southland Times) the husbands expressed their willingness to return to their homes and do what they could for their families, but the wives objected and the magistrate made orders. In one case Mr Hanan, who appeared for the husband, argued that as the woman had left her husband without any cause '■ and he was willing to have her back he could not be asked to keep her away from. home. Mr Poynton, the magistrate, eaid any alleged improper conduct on the part of the woman could not affect the case. It would not matter if she were living with a Chinaman, if she came to court and proved that she was destitute her husband must support- her so long as he recognised her as his wife. In such circumstances his only remedy was the Pivorce Court. The fact of her being destitute meant that she must be supported, and the State would not do that so long as she had a huiband able to support her. Mr Hanan urged that such an argument would seem to kill all restitution of conjugal rights- As to that, replied Mr Poynton, the House of Lords has decided that there is no such thing as conjugal rights, and a husband cannot compel his wife to live with him. Mr Hanan objected that there was no equality about such a law, and he considered it would have the effect of diminishing marriages if it were to be generally known that a wife could, without cause, leave her home and con: pel her husband to maintain her where she chose to go. As to the inequality, Mr Poynton paid he thought that if a husband left his home without cause and became destitute his wife, if she had property m her own right, could be made to support him.