DIVORCE LAW.

Hokitika Guardian, 21 January 1922, Page 1

DIVORCE LAW.

SECTION 4 OF THE 192. J ACT. AN AMENDMENT PROPOSED. WELLINGTON, Jim 18. Sir Francis Bell to-day moved tile 5 second reading of the Divorce and Matrimonial Causes Act, Amendment Bill in the Legislative Council. He explained that the measure amended section 4 of the 1920 Act, which allowed separation by decree by a Magistrate’s order, or by mutual consent to be, after three years, a sufficient ground for the initial tion of divorce' proeeedin&s by either party. What the Bill proposed was the addition of the following provision to Section 4 “If upon the hearing of a petition under this section, the respondent opposes the making of a decree of dissolution.” The Government, he said was prepared to oonsider suggestions for alteration cf the wording of the proviso. It had not brought down the Bill because of pressure from outside, but because upon consideration it regarded the amendment as desirable. Sit Franois Bell mentioned that the Acting Chief Justice had suggested an amendment which was to the same effect as the (Bill, except that it dealt only with maltreatment of a wife by the husband, i The Hon. W. H. Triggs said that in 1920 he had held the view that the door to divoroe was being opened too wide. The present Bill would no doubt rectify the most glaring injustices that were able to be perpetrated under the 1920 Act, but he was still inclined to think that the Legislature had risked undermining the foundations of marriage. It was extremely easy in this country for persons unhappily married to break tile bonds. The easiest way of divorce was probably that opened by the law regard ing conjugal rights. Separation by I consent led to divorce by a longer way. There were doubtless many unhappy ( unions that it would be better for all I concerned to have broken. On the <1 other hand some couples who thought themselves unable too agree needed only a little time and a little patience in. or dm- to reach Harmonious relations. The Legislature should be careful not to tempt such couples to take the road to divorce. He thought that Section 4 might well be amended by deletion of all reference to separation by mutual j consent. A separation by consent was J often the result of one party’s insis--I tence. The other kinds of legal separation were made only after judicial enquiry. Divorce by collusion was not in the interests of the community. Mr Trigg9 gave notice of his intention to move an amendment tn conformity with the views he had just’ expressed. The Hon 0. Samuel said that the very reason for the outcry against the law was to be fonnd in the large number of persons seeking relief under it. The wisdom of the 1920 amendment had been demonstrated by the number of those who found in it •> release from ties which no longer had a meaning. The Judge? administering the law had earnestly endeavoured to protect from ; hardship those who needed such protec- < tion. The suggested amendment of the kw would give & vindictive wife or husband an opportunity to prevent ft di- : vore’e from mere hatred of the other party. It gave the 'Court, the power i to exereis e discretion, and therein Fc . thought it erred. He did not wish to i see the 1920 amendment altered, ex- i cept to enable the Court to .give protec- i tion where protection should justly he j i given. : , The Hon W. J. Ceddis supported the ' Bill. i j The Hon J. MacGregor (who was 1 chiefly responsible for Seetion 4) said i that when a. marriago had ceased to be 1 a marriage in any sense of the word, it 1 wts surely not desirable that the parties to it} should be bound together for the rest of their lives. In principle, he submitted, the 1920 amendment was sound. He did not feel called upon to support the Bill. The second reading was carried by 25 1 votes to 4, those voting against it being 1 the Hon M. Cohen, the Hon J. B. Gow ‘ the H'on. J. MacGregor and the Hon O. ' Samuel. The Bill was referred to the Statutes Revision Committee. !