QUICK DIVORCES

Waikato Times, Volume 124, Issue 20819, 1 June 1939, Page 11

QUICK DIVORCES

PRACTICE CRITICISED PETITIONS FOR RESTITUTION INTENTION OF CHIEF JUSTICE (By Telegraph.—Press Association) WELLINGTON, Wednesday The attitude of the GJiieT Justice, Sir Michael Myers, towards divorce cases involving decrees Tor the restitution of conjugal rights, was stated by him during the hearing of such a petition to-day. lie said that a divorce could he obtained after mutual separation for three years, hut there was another method which avoided that wait. One spouse might leave the other, and next day the one who was left might write requesting the other to return. If the other did not return there could he proceeded with a petition for restitution. Generally speaking, where a petitioner was entitled to such a decree an order was made for the decree to be complied with within 14 days after service. That meant, instead of waiting for three years people could obtain a divorce in very little more than three months. That was the law, but His Honour said he saw no reason why the courts should go in advance of the Legislature and make divorce still more easj. To his mind that was done where leave was granted to set a case down for a sitting for which there was no right to set it down. Unless the position was guarded, as he proposed to guard it in the present case, by the fixing of a substantial period in which the decree for restitution could be complied with, there would frequently be suspicion of collusion in a case of this kind. Though he was satisfied there w r as no suspicion against the petitioner in this particular case. A Case Ui Point The force of what he was saying could be seen, he continued, from the particulars of another case which was before the Court. A decree for restitution was served on February 13, to be complied v/ith in 14 days. On March 1 that was followed by the filing of a petition for divorce, even though the petitioner had stated (because it was the duty of the Court always to put the question) that he or she was anxiously desirous of obtaining a decree for restitution, not for the purpose of getting a divorce, but because he or she was genuinely anxious to have the spouse back. The course he proposed to adopt in the case he was dealing with, and would adopt in other cases where he thought it necessary, was to fix the period of three months, instead of the usual 14 or 21 days, in which the order for restitution could be complied with. That would not hurt a petitioner and would prevent a respondent obtaining freedom, if that were respondent's real object, by what after all was a “side win” at an unreasonably early date. It would also give an opportunity of reconciliation if that were possible.