IMPROVEMENTS IN DIVORCE LAW MADE BY NEW AMENDMENT

Manawatu Times, Volume LIII, Issue 6670, 25 July 1928, Page 8

IMPROVEMENTS IN DIVORCE LAW MADE BY NEW AMENDMENT

Judicial Separation If Restitution Refused SUBJECT OF COLLUSION CLEARED UP Times Special. From Our Own Parliamentary Eeporter. WELLINGTON, Last Night Besides being a consolidation of existing statutes dealing with divorce, the Divorce and Matrimonial Causes Bill, read a first time in the House to-day proposes several alteration in the law, designed to take advantage of the improvements made in the English Act, passed in 1925.

It is explained that under the Bill failure to comply with a decree for restitution of conjugal rights is made a ground for judicial separation. It is a ground in England and is a ground foi dissolution in New Zealand. The distinction between, cases of adultery happening before and cases happening after the Ist of June, 1899, has been abolished. Until the Divorce Act of 1898 wag brought into operation on the Ist ol June, 1899, a wife could not obtain a divorce on the ground of adultery only unless it was incestuous adultery or 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 a right to obtain a divorce on tho ground of adultery if commited after the Act of 1898 came into force. ■When the Acts were consolidated in 1908 it was considered necessary to maintain the distinction between cases happening before the Ist of June, 1899, and those, happening after that date. But it seems to. be • unnecessary after the lapse of 29 years to maintain tho distinction.

The only possible effect of the change would bo to give a wife a right to a divorce in a case were her husband had committed adultery before the Ist of June, 1899, and had not committed any matrimonial offence since which would, give his wife a right to a divorce. The chance of there being such a case is remote indeed. The rule as to the retention of he? domicile, by a deserted wife notwithstanding that her husband has changed his domicile is extended by Clause 12, so as to apply to the case of a wife who has been separated from her husband by an agreement or otherwise. The subject of collusion has been cleared tip, and the law declared to be that except in the case of adultery collusion is only a discretionary bar to relief. It has been made clear that connivance is a bar in tho case of adultery only. This is necessary for It is absurd to talk about connivance where relief is sought on other grounds, as for example, the existence of an agreement for separation. The clause dealing with alimony and maintenance is taken from the English Act of 1925. It gets rid of the confusion created by the apparently conflicting provisions of Sections .41 and 42 of the Act of 1908, and gaves the Supremo Court tho.- additional powers possessed by tho High Court in England.''. ' >