DIVORCE PROBLEM

Hokitika Guardian, 28 February 1930, Page 6

DIVORCE PROBLEM

AVIFE’S MAINTENANCE.

(By Telegraph—Per Press Association.)

GISBORNE, February 27

An interesting point in divorce law before Justice Blair, during the hearing of a motion for a decree absolute was raised in the Supreme Court to-day John Henry Buzza (Mr was the applicant, and Louise Mary Buzza (Mr Burnnrd,) opposed the motion. Air Bumbl'd stated that the point raised was one of considerable importance in divorce practice. Petitioner was a working man with an average working man’s means. Should this decree be made absolute, then he might marry, when he would not bn able to maintain both bis new and Ids divorced wife, the latter of whom would thereby be considerably prejudiced. Respondent had not opposed the making of the. decree nisi, because she could not deny that there had been three years’ separation -by a mutual agreement, under wliich she was to receive £5 per week. Her right to maintenance would still continue, should the decree be made absolute, but if the husband married again, "he might be unable to continue the payments. Mr Coleman contended that, under Section 18 of the Act, the petitioner had an absolute right to a decree absolute. It was within the respondent’s rights to obtain an order for maintenance,• hut that was all she was entitled to in effect, if the decice was refused, it would mean that a rich man could obtain a decree on the grounds of mutual separation, but a poor man could not. M]- Burnard replied that the maintenance of the wife had always been I'pcocnisod as a primary obligation of marriage, and that, until recent legislation permitted divorce on the grounds of three years’ separation, a husband had always been liable to ”i:>infin im innocent wife. It was surely not intended that the lew should diminish the husband’s oblign-

tjon. Commenting that the matter was nf considerable importance, His Honour reserved bis decision, and stated he would probably consult w ; t ! brother Judges.