COSTS IN DIVORCE CASES

Otago Daily Times, Issue 25302, 12 August 1943, Page 5

COSTS IN DIVORCE CASES

POSITION OF ERRING WIVES (N.Z.P.A. Special Aust. Correspondent) (Rec. 8 p.m.) SYDNEY, Aug. 11. “This makes good sense, as well as good law,” comments the Sydney Herald in an editorial on an order by Mr Justice Bonney that a Sydney wife should pay the cost of her husband’s proceedings if she failed to comply with an order for the restitution of conjugal rights. The husband had given evidence that his wife left him without cause in December, 1942, and had taken a position as a barmaid. “Why should a woman who treats her marriage as a temporary convenience and has no defence to a charge be treated differently as regards costs from a man in the same position? ’’ asked the judge. ‘.‘The idea that a woman, simply because she is a woman, shoqld' never be ordered to pay costs in an undefended divorce action against her seems to me entirely out of date The home is a fundamental unit of our civilisation. Marriage as a lifelong unit is the basis of home life. If a woman likes to go off with another man or abandon her home and husband in pursuit of independence or higher wages, that is her own affair. But it seems to me only right that she and not the innocent party should pay the costs of the proceedings which she causes.” The judge added that the long-stand-in tr practice of awarding costs against petitioning husbands was not supported by any authority furnishing reasons for its perpetuation. Every case should be decided on its merits.