DIVORCE LAW.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 20963, 28 February 1930, Page 8

DIVORCE LAW.

AN INTERESTING POINT. vA WIFE'S MAINTENANCE. (Peb United Peess Association.) GISBORNE, February 27. An interesting point in divorce law was raised in the Supreme Court to-day before Mr Justice Blair during the hearing of a motion for a decree absolute. • John Henry Buzza (Mr Coleman) was the applicant and Louise Mary Busza (Mr Burnard) opposed-the motion. Mr Barnard stated that the point raised was one of considerable importance in divorce practice. The petitioner was a working man with an average working man’s means. Should the decree be made absolute he might marry, and then be unable to maintain both his new and his divorced wife. The latter would thereby be considerably prejudiced. The respondent hac not opposed the making of a decree nisi, because she could not deny there had been three years’ separation by mutual agreement, under which she was to receive 25s per week. Her right to maintenance would still continue should the decree be made absolute, but if the husband married again he might bo unable eo continue the payments. Mr Coleman contended that under Sectain 18 of the Act the petitioner had an absolute right to a decree absolute. It was within rights to obtain an order for maintenance, but that was all she was entitled to. In effect if the decree was refused it would mean that a rich man could obtain a decree on the grounds of mutual separation, but a poor man could not.

Mr Burnard replied that the maintenance of a wife had always been recognised as a primary obligation of marriage, and that until recent legislation permitted divorces on the grounds .of three years' separation, a husband had always been liable to maintain an innocent wife. It was surely not intended that the ' lanshould diminish the husband’s obligation Commenting that the matter was of considerable importance, his Honor reserved his decision, and stated that ho would probably consult with his brother judges.