Divorce is not a pick-and-mix affair
by Andrew Tettenborn, TCW:
The basics of English divorce law are crudely these: separate for five years and the decree comes by rubber stamp (two years if the other party consents), or you can get an earlier order by proving misconduct. The result of a case in the Court of Appeal last week suggests that it has got the right balance.
An elderly wife of a wealthy but even older husband complained that her married life was boring; she had had an affair or two, and regularly had petty arguments with her husband (for the details, if you care to, you can plough through the official report: it’s like something out of a sitcom). Could she, therefore, have a divorce, please? This was like a million other cases, but with a twist: the husband, instead of agreeing and going on to argue about the money, said No. He was guilty of no misconduct and wanted to stay married. The judge decided that the husband was right and quite logically told the wife she would have to move out and wait five years. Three judges in the Court of Appeal had to agree.
All well? No. After piously intoning that it was not for them to take sides in political argument over the divorce law, they proceeded to do just that. Effectively, they said, in no uncertain terms, the law was out of date and needed to be brought kicking and screaming into the twenty-first century by allowing divorce on demand for those who for any reason wanted to be married no longer.
Related Posts
Tags
Share This
