QUESTION OF ALIMONY

New Zealand Times, Volume L, Issue 11437, 6 February 1923, Page 5

QUESTION OF ALIMONY

WIFE SAID TO BE DESTITUTE. LIABILITY OF HUSIBAND. The question of a husband’s liability for alimony after divorce proceedings arose in the Supreme Court yesterday when an application came before Mr Justice Hosking on behalf of a wife said to be in a destitute position. The matter was further complicated owing to the fact that the husband had remarried after the divorce, and now had a wife and child to provide for. The case concerned an original petition for divorce Brought by Cyril Janies Phelps, of Wellington, against his wife, Ivy May Phelps, of Auckland, Christopher Shannon being cited as co-re-spondent. The ground for the petition was adultery. The respondent counter-petitioned-on the same grounds. This was not denied. The case came for trial before Mr Justice Herdman and a jury of twelve, on May 30th last, when the jury found for the petitioner, and His Honour gave simultaneous decrees nisi. Costs were allowed against the petitioner on the highest scale. The respondent now moved for permanent alimony on the ground® that she was destitute, Mr G. Toogood, on her behalf, instancing the fact that she was in receipt of charitable aid. Mr C. A. L. Treadwell, for the petitioner, denied that he was in a position to pay alimony, as he had remarried, and had a wife and child to support. He inferred that the respondent was still in touch With the corespondent, and for that reason the petition should not he acted updn. It was also stated that she was in a position to earn her own living. Mr Justice Hosking mentioned the sum of ten shillings weekly as an appropriate allowance under the circumstances, but counsel for the respondent declared it would not be enough for her to live on. Decision was reserved.