DIVORCE LAW’S PROBLEMS.

Shannon News, 22 December 1925, Page 3

DIVORCE LAW’S PROBLEMS.

FIRST WIFE’S INTERESTS. THE HUSBAND’S FIRST DUTY From time to time many problems ‘arise in connection with the administration i of the divorce laws, and during the past few weeks there have been, several instances where anomal. ies have been discovered. One of these was provided during the sesiion of the Supremo Court at Gisborne on Wednesday, when Mr. Justice Reed laid it down that .where a man was seeking a divorce on the grounds of separation for three years his first duty in the way of main, tenance lay with the first wife. The petition in the Gisborne case was based upon the separation of the parties for three years under an agreement of separation, which provided for maintenance being paid to the respondent at the rate o 1: £2 10/a week, the divorce being sought by lire husband.. Condition of Decree Absolute. Mr. Burnard then stated that the respondent had no objection to a decree being granted, provided her maintenance could, be satisfactorily secured. He pointed out that in cases such as the present, where the petitioner had no substantial property and earned only a moderate income, a grave danger was involved to the respondent in the event of his re. marriage. , In such an event his obligation to maintain a new wife would make it practically impossible lor him to pay respondent maintenance, and in that case she would be left ’destitute. He suggested that in the event of the decree being granted it should only be on terms that the order absolute should not be sealed until satisfactory security for the payment of maintenance should be given.

The Judge said that, so far as he was concerned personally, he had always taken the view, and other Judbes bad supported it, that the first wife had the prior claim tomaintenance. On an application for attachment for nonpayment of ali--I‘ony he made it. a practice to send a defaulting husband to gaol, even though he had remarried subsequently to the granting of the divorce. .Practically a Bar to Divorce. Mr. Burnard stated that the writ of attachment was a remedy only to be used in the last resource and the practical difficulty in husband and wife cases was to provide the necessary inducement to get the husband to pay. In too many cases husbands preferred to go to gaol rather than to pay maintenance. He recognised that the effect of imposing the condition asked for might be to prevent the petitioner in the present case from being able to obtain the benefit of his divorce, but he submitted that the care of the first wife and children was paramount. The Luxury of Two Wives. . The Judge said the poor man must forego the luxury of maintaining two wives. He had some doubt as to whether section 4 of “The Divorce Amendment Act, 1920,” permitted the imposition of a condition, but he agreed that such a condition was rca. sonable and he would make the order it might eventually be necessary to direct the attention of the Legislature to this particular aspect of the recent divorce legislaiou, It would appear

that the greatest difficulty in matters connected with divorce was to get the husband to pay the maintenance many preferring to go to gaol rather than pay .