Tini Owens: forced to remain married

“If we needed reminding of just how archaic our marriage laws are then we only have to consider the lamentable case of Tini Owens,” said Suzanne Moore in The Guardian. Owens, who is 68, wishes to divorce her 80-year-old husband, Hugh, a wealthy Worcestershire mushroom farmer, after 40 years of marriage – but she can’t. When Mrs Owens moved out of the marital home in 2015 and filed for divorce, Mr Owens refused to consent to it. As a result, his wife was forced to prove in court that his behaviour had been so unreasonable that the marriage should be deemed to have broken down irretrievably. The courts ruled that she had failed: the judge found that Mr Owens, though “somewhat old school”, was not unreasonable, and that his wife was “more sensitive than most”. That decision has now been upheld by the Supreme Court, which last week ruled – reluctantly – that Mrs Owens must stay married to the man she wants to divorce.

This is a sad story, but not a common one, said The Daily Telegraph. It is very rare for a divorce to be defended: in 2016, only 17 petitions out of a total of 114,000 in England and Wales went to a final contested hearing. Mostly, divorcing couples agree to apportion blame, citing (as per the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973) either adultery or unreasonable behaviour. Alternatively, they can get a divorce if both agree to it and they’ve been separated for two years. Even if one party does not consent, the other can get a divorce after five years of separation (so Mrs Owens will be free in 2020). The process is cumbersome, but without it we’d have “divorce on demand”. Are we “ready for that”?

“Of course I feel sorry for Tini Owens,” said Jan Moir in the Daily Mail. But her evidence of unreasonable behaviour was pretty feeble: she said her husband speaks too loudly in public; that he once criticised her sloppy cardboard recycling; and that, on another occasion, they had a row in an airport over what gift to buy their housekeeper. If one spouse could divorce the other on the basis of such minor altercations, “there wouldn’t be a marriage left between here and the dark side of the Moon”. That’s not the point, said The Times. The real issue is that our current laws create unnecessary conflict, because even couples who both wish to get divorced are forced to apportion blame to one of the parties, or to wait two years. “The pressure to find and chronicle a partner’s faults makes divorce needlessly toxic.” The family courts should try to make splits as amicable as possible. “Instead, the law, as it stands, piles on the misery.”