RESTITUTION SUITS

Hawke's Bay Herald-Tribune, Issue 146, 8 July 1937, Page 5

RESTITUTION SUITS

-Breea Association.)

Obligations _ oi Husband Petitioners INTERESTING JUDGMENT

(By l'elegraph-

WELLINGTON, This Day. An interesting judgment concerning restitution of conjugal rights was deiivered in the Appeal Court to-day an the Auckland case Eonald Eric Phimoster versus Anita Milly Phimester, neard on July 1. This case was moved into the Court of Appeal, in the absence of the express rule upon a certam aspect of suits for restitution of conjugal rights, to consider the advisabieness of laying down a uniform practice as any judge of the Supreme Court might do in exercise of the discxetion vested in him by section 8 of the Divorce and Matrimonial Causes Act, 1928. The question raised, however, is referable only to restitution suits in which a husband is %the petitioner. The judgment stated that it should oe laid down as a rule of practice that a husband petitioner obtaining a decree for restitution should state either as a xootnote to the decree or in a separafce aotice served upon the respondent the aouse to which she is, to return and the effect or possible. result of nonsompliance with the decree, and that in any subsequent suit founded upon non-compliance with the decree the Court should require proof of the respondent wife having been given requ'isite notiee. In the particular case before the Court it was held that the petitioner was entitled to the decree, and it was stated that the Court below would pronounce it. Accordingly the petitioner would be required to satisfy the Court in any subsequent suit for divorce that he had complied with the practice as set forth above.