A LEGAL ANOMALY.

Press, Volume LVII, Issue 17127, 23 April 1921, Page 14

A LEGAL ANOMALY.

f AND DOMINION DWOROES i>. ; . : " : ':-'-':-i'"-»V- -' '■::■:(■;-■ ■■/'.'.: '.■** . " , - •'"■■'• s

I*: x ivn6k 013* OWN ooereseondent.) Henry Duke, tho president of cannot dissolve ■; : .^iv' : in. Indian bess':iy;£Ba perspffr lesident.jn. that country aMision-bo-i'fgp^^onoifrom the which ■ : ;-.*3ti'doeafnot' seeiij£ to bo in; it" any time, during iho j-'i fifiy-two_j|b4bs that haxpßelapsed since• :' , :'v^;Jli^'ln^an'V ; DiTorce'-'Abt , -..wMi:-.Bassed ; . many hundreds of cases injludia have y< .mMMed agfcin, to-find,*;now;,.*after the : years}: that,; apparently of sfce;Ss6nd marriage not the country : '*> this decision.- .Both Aus*^ttali4 r and" New Zealand- authorise the tdygrants divooroßs tor deserted' ;• -'*> wives wliosV-. hustfanVib,}; hayo changed "':.• '> their - The^r«su|f;>s, that, amSY*Jess.iifceiwMui imperial; legislation in '-"•'< whicltthe* Bcnriihioris concur. .to remedy *A: ; thb%^^ ' hP-the J)ohf be "of i s®M$™~ti&f> raa "7 agam. i';¥*iii England. . . . —,' The case which has brought this !u- strangelegal.anoraaly ? t6-:lightw-asthat "of Captain Reginald' Keyes, of Dart* < V ford.'fent' 'who petitioned for;*■ divorce 'tffronlMrff. Annie on t,js: ; Aground of- her misconduct with Mr Cecil Gray. The petitioner ob- | ' tained a divorce from his w-ife in the 't'Punjab-High Court in November, 1918. " At its hearing. Sir Eric Richards, who 'v'•£p'peared;ifbr the Secretary for India, the -question raised was one "£• of. great importance. If it were laid sl^down' i :iliat divorces granted, for ; |> nibrdthaii: fifty years in India weio lh:%>valid -it would create *«.'. very difficult HlrpotStioh: There had been many t re--s:,'4f^.^jl^w^i';"'«»tl.«-'Wlt,ren had been born depended upon the v^^re^of'the'ilndian courts. ■; -\ v'i: ; M^'^^.-'Br^idenii''.i[iving a judgment, said were -.rheof India in of 1801 to q.stab-. to dissolva the • ; |#i^a^ri»^?s of elscauthorrty. if» ..feiven'.'-to-". the GbS'ornpr-'. ■ fW oa •/■!-^"^"'^p\ : 9oSiclmeht' 'Jopftha Imperial "Parliai:'r;W^ea^::w^hejlndwiri Divorce 9 v

as to.' enable the Chief Court of the Punjab to make decrees for th.* dissolution of-the marriages of. such persons; No one would suppose that the power- contained in Section 22 of the Act of 1861 should extend to the making of a law : which would affect the heritable capacity of a man resident inlndia in respect of land in England, or,'control his conduct iris any matter ofipurely English: concern.. : Ho had no doubt that to create a jurisdiction in divorce, such as was exercised in this country was within tho 'pc-wers 0 f the Governor-General in. Council bv tho Act of 1861. But-that Actulid not warrant-the making of a law.->o empower the -Courts in' India to decree dissolution .of the marriage of-persons not domiciled within their, jurisdiction. The Indian Divorce let of 18Q9 furnished,:no sufficient, authority, for the divorce of the petitioner and thy respondent T>y the Chief Court.of the Punjab.

The President, therefore, fciuid that the marriage of the ]>etitionßr and the respondent ■ solemnised in 'Calcutta was still subsisting- The petitioner was now entitled'to a'dceree nisi'which would he granted .with costs against tho corespondent. V *

This decision uecessitntes an Act of Parliament. to. legislate the status of those peopl.e who.-'havo.married .'igain after obtaining a. divorce in India and nlso to legitimis;' their (-liildren. dating from the passing Act of 1869.' The .Act will also have tb be extended to the smaller niimbpr of cases arising from divorces in Australia and New Zealand on grounds based on domicile. ; ' < '., : ■/..■ ■; •