ALIMONY PAYMENTS

Sun (Auckland), Volume III, Issue 909, 28 February 1930, Page 16

ALIMONY PAYMENTS

MAN'S LIABILITY AFTER REMARRIAGE JUDGE TO SETTLE POINT Press Association GISBORNE, Thursday. An interesting point in divorce law was raised in the Supreme Court today before Mr. Justice Blair during the hearing of a motion for a decree absolute. John Henry Buzza (Mr. Coleman) was the petitioner, and Louise Mary Buzza (Mr. Burnard) opposed the motion. Mr. Burnard stated that the point raised was one of considerable importance in divorce practice. The petitioner was a working man with an average working man’s mea#is. Should the decree be made absolute he might marry and then be unable to maintain both his new and his divorced wife, so that the latter might thereby be considerably prejudiced. The respondent had not opposed the making of a decree nisi because she could not deny there had been three years’ separation by mutual agreement, under which she was to receive 25s a 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 c ontended 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, but that was all she was entitled to. If the decree was refused it would mean that the rich man could obtain a decree on grounds of mutual separation, but the poor, man could not. Counsel for the respondent replied that the maintenance of the wife had always been recognised as a primary obligation of marriage, and that until recent legislation permitted divorces on grounds of three years’ separation, the husband had always been liable to maintain an innocent wife. It was surely not intended that the law should diminish, the husband’s obligation. Commenting that the matter was of considerable importance, His Honour reserved his decision and stated he would probably consult with his brother Judges.