FORMER WIFE

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXXIII, Issue 22449, 19 June 1936, Page 12

FORMER WIFE

MAINTENANCE CASE LEGAL POINT RAISED appeal court hearing [by telegraph—fbess association] WELLINGTON, Thursday The Court of Appeal to-day heard the appeal of Alexander Pooley against the judgment of Mr. Justice given at Auckland, which ruled that appellant's wife,. Violetta Irene Pooley, who had obtained a divorce, was entitled to maintenance, which His Honor fixed at 30s a week. The Acting-Chief Judge, Mr. Justice Reed, presided, and with him were Mr. Justice Smith, Mr. Justice Johnston, and Mr. .Justice Northcroft. In September, 1931, respondent obtained a divorce from appellant and custody of their child. About that time appellant agreed to pay respondent £2 a week toward the maintenance and 'support of herself and the child. This amount was regularly paid until some time m 1934, when it was reduced to 30s a week. A further reduction was made to £1 a week last January, when respondent took proceedings for permanent maintenance. On March 12, Mr. Justice Fair held that respondent was entitled to maintenance, which he fixed at 30s a week. Appellant then obtained leave to appeal, in forma pauperis, from this judgment. ! Mr. James, for appellant, stated ' to-day tha*, a question of general im- ' portancc was involved. That was, how i long after a decree absolute had been made the Court had power to make an order for permanent maintenance. Counsel submitted that the judge had« drawn certain, wrong inferences of fact, and had acted erroneously in law in awarding permanent maintenance to respondent some four years after the decree absolute had been made. On behalf of respondent, Mr. Singer contended that an application for permanent maintenance could successfully be made after a decree absolute. Ihe period of time within which the application must be made was a matter for the discretion of the judge, taking into account all the circumstances. The only reasons which a wife could put forward to explain a delay were that she was ignorant of her rights or that she had been lulled into a position of false security because her husband had actually been paying her maintenance over a lengthy period. The duty of a trial judge was to consider the facts. Having considered those, it was for him to decide whether he was right to award maintenance. A mere lapse of time was not a deciding factor. . ■ ,

The Court reserved its decision.