MAINTENANCE APPEAL

Hawke's Bay Herald-Tribune, Issue 49, 13 March 1937, Page 6

MAINTENANCE APPEAL

— Press Association.)

Payment of Arrears After Divorce i VAUDITY OF COtJTRACT

(By Telegraph-

WELLINGTON, Last Night, The Court oi Appeal is engaged in hearing the appeal of Charles Whitworth Hole v. Ottoline Valerie Hole. The parties were at one time husband and wife but, on the wlfe's petition, based on an oral agreement for separation, they were divorced in 1934. At the time of the separation the appellant agreed to pay £5 a week for the maintenance of the respondent and their infant daughter and payments were made under this arrangement. The maintenance fell into arrears and, in July, 1934, on an application for permanent maintenance, £3 a week was ordered to be paid to the respondent. This order was expressed to be withbut prejudice as to any xights which the respondent might have as to past maintenance.

In February, 1936, the respondent cQmmenced proceedings claiming £520, representing the difference between the amount of maintenance paid under the maintenance order and that which she claimed should have been paid under the agreement.' Mr. Justice Blair allowed the respondent 's elairn, holding that divorce and cnaintenanee proceedings did not in any way affeet a contraet between parites exeept that a, maintenance order must be taken as in pro tanto discharge of the agreement. The appellant now seeks to reverse this judgment. Addressing the Court on behalf of appellant, Mr Perry submitted tfiat authorities showed that an agreement for separation would t6rminate on the death of either party or on the resumption of married Hfe. He contended, further, that an agreement would terminate when the parties became divorced, as- they did in this case^ He. further submitjvd that every separation agreement whiek did not colitain provisions for a settlement on the wife was put an end to if either party petitioned for and obtained a divorce. Mr Leicester, for respondent, subffiitted that there had been an agreement to pay respondent £5 a week, that this allowance was to be permanent, and that proceedings for maintenance did not debar lier from proeeeding under the agreement. The hearing was- ad.jourucd.