Judges force woman to stay in unhappy marriage
Supreme Court judges have “reluctantly” forced a woman to stay in an unhappy marriage as they urged Parliament to change divorce law. The unanimous decision means Tini Owens, 68, must stay married to her husband Hugh, 80, until at least 2020
SUPREME Court judges have “reluctantly” forced a woman to stay in an unhappy marriage as they urged Parliament to change divorce law.
The unanimous decision by five senior judges means Tini Owens, 68, must remain married to Hugh, 80, her husband, until at least 2020 because she has been unable to show sufficient grounds for the proposed split.
Judges said the case “generates uneasy feelings” and suggested that the current system, in which partners must demonstrate bad behaviour by their spouse, was out of date.
Mrs Owens first approached lawyers about a divorce in 2012, before moving out and filing her petition in 2015. Mr Owens, her husband of 40 years, has repeatedly argued that their marriage has not broken down and refused to consent to the divorce. His wife will now have to wait until they have lived apart for five years to divorce him.
Judges raised concerns that earlier rulings had not taken into account the cumulative effect of Mr Owens’ behaviour. The case depended on showing that her husband had embarked upon a “remorseless course of authoritarian conduct”, and the Family Court judge had examined only a handful, they said.
In a judgment published yesterday, Lady Hale, president of the Supreme Court, said the case was “troubling”.
She said: “This was a case which depended upon the cumulative effect of a great many small incidents said to be indicative of authoritarian, demeaning and humiliating conduct over a period of time. Those who have never experienced such humiliation may find it difficult to understand how destructive such conduct can be of the trust and confidence which should exist in any marriage.”
Lord Wilson added that marriage was now a “partnership of equals” and that the point at which it became unreasonable for a woman to live with her husband was much “earlier” than in the past. Lady Hale said: “It is not for us to change the law laid down by Parliament – our role is only to interpret and apply the law that Parliament has given us.”
Lord Wilson said: “Parliament may wish to consider whether to replace a law which denies to Mrs Owens any present entitlement to a divorce in the above circumstances.”
The ruling has led to renewed calls for the Government to introduce “nofault” divorce, allowing couples to split without having to cite bad behaviour.
David Gauke, the Justice Secretary, has previously said that the current system creates “unnecessary antagonism in an already difficult situation”.
Last week he said he was “sympathetic” to a private member’s Bill introduced by Baroness Butler-sloss which would require the Government to review the current law and consider a proposal for a system of no-fault divorce.