A woman who was refused a divorce from her husband after 37 years of marriage has had her appeal for divorce rejected by the Supreme Court – leading to questions being raised about the current laws surrounding grounds for divorce.
Tini Owens divorce
As we previously reported, Tini Owen’s claims her marriage to Hugh Owens had broken down following an affair she had several years ago. However, Mr Owens contested the divorce and her petition on the grounds of unreasonable behaviour has now been rejected by the High Court, the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court.
The decision means Mrs Owens will have to remain married, although after five years of separation she will be eligible for a divorce, even if her husband still objects.
Current laws regarding divorce petitions
The Supreme Court judgment, in this case, provides a really useful analysis of how the Family Court should approach divorce petitions which are based on the conduct of the respondent.
The current laws date back to 1969 (consolidated in the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973) when attitudes to marriage and divorce were very different. The statute states that when you apply for a divorce, you must prove your marriage has broken down and give one of the following five reasons – adultery, unreasonable behaviour, desertion, you have lived apart for more than two years and both agree to the divorce or you have lived apart for at least five years.
Ultimately, unhappiness is not a legally sound reason for the Court to grant a divorce and in the case of Mrs Owens, she has been unable to obtain a divorce while her husband continues to contest it.
The majority of divorce petitions in England and Wales are not contested. However, in this case, the husband defended the petition, stating he wasn’t convinced the marriage had broken down, even though there was no way their relationship was going to be reconciled.
Despite it being obvious that the marriage is over and there is no prospect of reconciliation, Mr and Mrs Owens must remain tied to each other for another two years or so because of a law that was devised nearly 50 years ago.
Comment
From a legal point of view, I can understand the reasoning behind the Court’s decision, but in this day and age, it’s unfair that a couple is forced to stay together, even if they cannot make their marriage work.
Only Parliament can change the law to permit no-fault divorce, so this case hasn’t changed the procedure to get a divorce but it has highlighted the serious shortcomings of the procedure in today’s world.
How Can Nelsons Help
For more information or if you need help through the divorce or financial process, please contact a member of our Family Law team on 0800 024 1976 or via our online form.