MAINTENANCE ORDERS AND FAMILY BENEFITS

Chronicle (Levin), 24 May 1946, Page 4

MAINTENANCE ORDERS AND FAMILY BENEFITS

WELLINGTON, IMay 23. The Government 's intention was not that maintenanee paid by a man for I his child, should be reduced because of ! pavment of the family bencfit for children, said the J\liuister of Social i Securitv, Hon. W. E. Parry, today; He 1 was asked if he had seen the report of 'the Dunedin case in which a Magjs- ; trate had reduced by 10s a week, main- ■ tenance paid by a man divorced from ! his wife, because the wife was receiv- ! ing the family beneiit. Alr. Parry said the decision had been ; uoted for possible amendment to existjing legislation being brought dotvn dur- ! ing the coming session. He pointed j out that in the Finance Aet provision I had been made protecting orders under i the Destitute Persons Act from reduej tion because of the extension of the J family allowance. That this was done ! sliowed the obvious intention of the j legislation. Howevov, not all orders were made under the Destitute Persons Act. While the order in the Dunedin case might have been made under some other enactment, the intention of the Government was that the pavment of the family beneflt was not to reduce a father's liability for maintenftneo,