Storm as judges rule unhappy wife must stay in her marriage
Campaigners slam court ruling
TOP judges have told a woman trapped in a broken marriage that being unhappy is not sufficient grounds for a divorce.
Tini Owens moved out in 2015 but hit trouble because her husband of 40 years, Hugh, 80, refuses to agree to the split.
Family and appeal courts previously refused a divorce to the 68-year-old,who lives in a house neighbouring her estranged hubby, because she failed to prove he had behaved unreasonably.
And in a major test of divorce law, the Supreme Court yesterday upheld the earlier decisions. The panel of five judges kicked the ball down to Parliament, saying it was not for them to “change the law”.
Tini’s lawyer, Simon Beccle, said: “Mrs Owens is devastated by this decision, which means she cannot move forward with her life and obtain her independence from Mr Owens.”
Specialist lawyers called the ruling a missed opportunity to reform archaic divorce laws in England and Wales that require one party to accept fault for the breakdown.
Calling for ministers to act, Resolution – a national organisation of family lawyers committed to non-confrontational divorce – said no one should be in such a position in the 21st century.
Former chairman Nigel Shepherd said: “It is outrageous that Mrs Owens, or anybody, is forced to remain trapped in a marriage, despite every judge involved in the case acknowledging it has come to an end in all but name.
“Today’s judgment underlines how vital it is Government now urgently reforms the divorce law.”
Unlike other countries, England and Wales force most couples to “blame” one party by citing examples of unreasonable behaviour or adultery. Divorce lawyers say this often escalates and disputing the claims is rarely successful.
But in Tini’s case, disputing the claims worked for Hugh, leaving her stuck as his wife until 2020 – when they can divorce after being apart for five years.
Even if he agreed to a divorce, they would have to wait two years without her proving unreasonable behaviour.
Retired mushroom farmer Hugh contested a list of 27 complaints by Tini, which she described as “continued beratement” of her over a brief fling in 2012. Examples included criticising her in front of the housekeeper, a row in an airport shop and making stinging remarks about her during a meal.
At an earlier hearing, a judge said these things were to be expected in a marriage. Tini, of Broadway, Worcestershire, then went to the Supreme Court, getting judges to scrutinise legislation on unreasonable behaviour and fault.
Lord Wilson said yesterday that justices had ruled against her “with reluctance” and it was a question for Parliament to decide whether the laws governing divorce remain satisfactory.
Supreme Court president Lady Hale said she found the case “very troubling”. Shadow Justice Secretary Richard Burgon said: “This underlines why our divorce laws need to change. Labour is committed to introducing no-fault divorce proceedings.”
Responding to the verdict, the Ministry of Justice posted: “The system creates unnecessary antagonism. We are looking at possible reforms.”