[ad_1]
A woman who wants to divorce her husband for 40 years because she says their marriage is unfortunate has lost a fight in the UK Supreme Court.
Five Supreme Court justices ruled that Tini Owens must remain married to Hugh Owens. The judges upheld the decisions of a family court judge and judges of the Court of Appeal.
Mrs. Owens, who is in her 60s, wants to divorce and says that her marriage to Mr. Owens, who is 80 years old, is without love.
She says she behaved unreasonably and not reasonably expected to remain married
but Mr. Owens refuses to accept the divorce and rejects Mrs. Owens' allegations about her behavior [19659005]. says if their marriage has irretrievably broken down it's because she's had an affair, or because she's "bored".
million. and Mrs. Owens were married in 1978 and lived in Broadway, Worcestershire, the judges heard.
Ms. Owens petitioned for divorce in 2015 after moving.
Suprem The judges of the Court badyzed rival legal arguments, which revolved around the concepts of "unreasonable" behavior and "fault", at a Supreme Court hearing in London in May and rendered a decision on Wednesday
. He stated that the "question for Parliament" was whether the law governing the "right to divorce" remained "satisfactory".
Lord Wilson reported that Mrs. Owens could divorce in 2020 "
Another Supreme Court president, Lady Hale, said the case was [traduction]" very troubling "
but she said that it was not up to the judges to "change the law".
Mrs. Owens had already lost two rounds of the battle
In 2016, she failed to persuade a family court judge to allow her to get divorced.
Last year, three appellate judges ruled against her in London.
Th They said that Mrs. Owens had not established that her marriage had been legally irretrievably broken and dismissed her challenge of a decision of Judge Robin Tolson
A Judge of Appeal stated that she had come to the conclusion "without enthusiasm". It would have been necessary to decide whether to introduce a "no-fault" divorce on request.
Another stated that Parliament had "decreed" that being in a "miserable marriage" was not a ground for divorce. should not have to prove that Mr. Owens' behavior was "unreasonable" – only that he should not "reasonably be expected" to stay with him.
They say that the case concerns a "good interpretation" of the legislation.
Philip Marshall QC Lawyer, who heads Ms. Owens' legal team, told Supreme Court justices that a "modest change" in the interpretation of the law was necessary.
But lawyer Nigel Dyer QC, who heads Mr. Owens' legal team, disagrees and has raised concerns about the introduction of divorce on "application" .- PA [19659023]
[ad_2]
Source link
