COURT OF APPEAL

Otago Daily Times, Issue 22911, 19 June 1936, Page 22

COURT OF APPEAL

PERMANENT MAINTENANCE RIGHTS OF DIVORCED WIFE (Peis United Press Association) WELLINGTON, June 18. The Court of Appeal is to-day hearing the case of Alexander Pooley versus Violetta Irene Pooley. In September, 1931, Violetta Irene Pooley, of Auckland, obtained a divorce from her husband, Alexander Pooley, and the custody of their child. About that time the husband agreed to pay the wife £2 a week towards the maintenance and support of herself and child. This amount was regularly paid until some time in 1934, when it was reduced to £1 10s a week. A further reduction was made to £1 a week in January last, when the present respondent took proceedings for permanent maintenance.' On March 12 Mr Justice Fair held that the respondent was entitled to maintenance, which he fixed at £1 10s per week. The appellant husband then obtained leave to appeal in forma pauperis from this judgment. Mr James, for the appellant, stated that a question of general importance was involved: How Tong after a decree absolute has the court power to make an order for permanent maintenance? In his submission the learned trial judge bad drawn certain wrong inferences of fact, and bad acted erroneously in law in awarding permanent maintenance to the respondent some four year*? after a decree absolute. On the Bench arc the Acting Chief Justice (Mr Justice Reed) and Air Justice Smith. Mr Justice Johnston, and Mr Justice Northcroft. On behalf of the respondent wife Mill. A. Singer contended that as the cases showed, an application for permanent maintenance could successfully be made after a decree absolute. The period of time within which an application must be made was a matter for the discretion of the judge, taking into account all the circumstances of the case. The only reasons which a wife could put forward to explain the delay were that she was ignorant of her rights or that she was lulled into a position of false security because the husband had actually been paying her maintenance over a lengthy period. The duty of the trial judge was to consider the facts and having considered these it was for him to decide whether he was right to award maintenance. The mure lapse of time was not a deciding factor. All the relevant matters had to be looked at. The court reserved its decision after a brief reply by Mr James, and the court adjourned.