DIVORCE REFUSED.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LVI, Issue 17276, 27 September 1919, Page 9

DIVORCE REFUSED.

QUESTION OF MAINTENANCE. HUSBAND'S WAR ALLOTMENT. INTERESTING POINT RAISED. [BY TELEGRAPH. —PE.ESS ASSOCIATION.] CHBIST'CHTTRCH, Friday. The question of whether an allotment made under compulsion means that a man has been supporting his wife was before Mr. Justice Herdman to-day in the case Martha Jane Joyce (Mr. R. B. Ward) v. Theobold Ritchie Joyce, a petition for* dissolution of marriage on the grounds of drunkenness and failure to maintain. At the previous hearing His Honor said that he was satisfied concerning the charges of drunkenness, but adjourned the case in order to hear further argument as to whether a man making an allotment to his wife under the defence regulation was maintaining her. Mr. Ward said the question was whether an allotment paid over by the Defence Department should be deemed payment by the husband. This aspect of the case had arisen through the war, and the matter was one that probably affected many women in the Dominion, and was therefore rather important. He could not find any decision of any Court as to whether an allotment by the Defence Department to a married woman should be regarded as maintenance provided by the husband. Hie Honor: Surely this is a payment of the husband's money. Mr. Ward: I contend it is not.

Counsel explained that tie petitioner had received £1 Is a week in the way of allotment money. Even if the husband did not actually serve, if he were a conscientious objector, his wife would still receive that £1 Is per week. For these reasons, unless a great injustice were to be done to many women, he urged the Court should exercise its discretion. In this case it had been proved that the payment of any money by the husband was not voluntary. Payment was a compulsory one on account of the Govern ment regulations, and that should be taken into consideration.

His Honor : Where a woman has £300 per rear, could it be said her husband had left her ■without means of support? Counsel: This woman has nothing. His Honor. She had the allotment and allowance to the amount of 55s a week for a period of four years. Counsel: The husband -ras compelled to give his allotment. His Honor : I don't, think that matters. The wife was not habitually left without means of support. Counsel said that since April last Joyce had contributed nothing to his wife's support. Hi* Honor, in dismission the petition, said the petitioner should endeavour to secure a divorce on some otbei grounds. If there were any evidence of cruelty, counsel should file a new ' petition. •: It would be, no doubt, a good felling for the •woman if alio got. a divorce..