PERMANENT MAINTENANCE

Poverty Bay Herald, Volume LXIII, Issue 19045, 19 June 1936, Page 13

PERMANENT MAINTENANCE

POWERS OF THE COURT APPEAL ACAINST DECISION (Per Press Associntion.) WELLINGTON, this day. Tho Court of Appeal to-day is hear ing the case of Alexander Foolcy versus Violettn Irene Poolcy. In September, 103.1, Violotta Irene Poolcy, of Auckland, obtained >i divorce from her husband, Alexander Pooloy, and the custody of their child. About that time the husband agreed to pay tho wife £2 a week towards the maintenance and support of horse!i and the child. This amount was rcgu larly paid until some time in 1034, when it was reduced to £1 10s u week. A further reduction was made to £1 a'week In January last, when the pre sent respondent, took proceedings for permanent maintenance. On March 1:' last Mr. Justice Fair held that the respondent was entitled to maintenance, which was fixed at .CI 10s ti week. The appellant husband then obtained leave to appeal in forma pauperis from this judgment. Mr. James, for appellant, stated thai a question of general importance was involved —how long after a decree absolute had the court power to make an order for permanent maintenance? In his submission the learned trial judge had drawn certain wrong inferences of faci and had acted erroneously in law in awarding permanent maintenance lo the respondent some four years after n decree absolute.

On the bench are the acting-Chin I Justice, Mr. Justice Reed, Mr. Justice Smith, Mr. Justice Johnston, and Mr Justice Xorlhcroft. (Proceeding.)