HOME FOR WIFE

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXXIV, Issue 22776, 9 July 1937, Page 13

HOME FOR WIFE

RESTITUTION PETITIONS RULE LAID DOWN BY COURT DECISION ON AUCKLAND CASE [BY TELEGRAPH —OWN CORRESPONDENT] WELLINGTON. Thursday As rule of practice it was laid down by the Court of Appeal to-day that any husband who has been left by bis wife and who seeks a decree for the restitution of conjugal rights must give notice of the homo to which his wife must return in order to comply with the decree. "Every man, whatever his circumstances, may be presumed to have a homo somewhere," stated the judgment of the Court —"the home in which he usually resides, whether it be a mansion, a house of more moderate dimension, a cottage, a flat, or even a room in an apartment house or hotel. There is, therefore, no hardship to a husband in requiring notice of such a home being given to respondent as the homo to which she should go in order to comply with the decree for restitution, and such requirement should present no difficulty in the way of any petitioner, however poor his circumstances may be.

"This requirement, while imposing no hardship on a petitioner, will at tho same time afford sufficient protection to a wife who, if she considers that tho home that is offered is unsuitable or is not what she is entitled to regard as a home, will be in a position to make application to tho Court in a restitution suit within the time fixed by the Court for compliance, or to rely ui)on its unsuitability as a defence in a subsequent suit for divorce founded upon non-compliance with the decree. "We think, therefore, that it should be laid down as a rule of practice that a husband petitioner obtaining a decree for restitution should state either as a footnote to the decree or in a separate notice served upon respondent, the homo to which she is to return and the effect or possible result of noncompliance with the decree; and that in any subsequent suit founded upon non-compliance with the decree the Court should require proof of respondent having been given tho requisite notice."

The case was an Auckland/case removed to the Court of Appeal by Mr. Justice Callan. It was heard by the Chief Justice, Sir Michael Myers, Mr. .Justice Ostler. Mr. Justice Kennedy, Mr. Justice Callan and Mr. Justice Northcroft. Petitioner was Ronald liric Phimester, hospital orderly, and respondent was Anita Milly Phimester. Mr. W. E. Leicester, with him Mr. K. C. Aekins, of Auckland, appeared for petitioner at the hearing, and the Solicitor-General, Mr. H. H. Cornish, K.C., was present as a disinterested adviser to the Court. The Court of Appeal held that petitioner was entitled to his decree, but would have to satisfy the Supreme Court in any subsequent suit for divorce that he had complied with the practice laid down.