What?

[cassa333]

I am lost for words.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-38978661

Who, in the western world where women have had rights for decades, can say she should not be divorced?

I would just leave and get a divorce on the grounds of not being together for a while.

Mind you perhaps she needs a divorce to get her share of the assets to be able to afford to move on!

[woofgang]

How odd......

[chelle7272]

Yes I found that very strange, poor woman!

[jackthehat]

An archaic law which needs to be revised.

[Jackdaw33]

Bizarre, to say the least. Anyway, after five years she can demand a divorce regardless of her husband's wishes.

[jno]

rather strange. And along with that case recently where, after a divorce was all settled and the wife provided for, she wasted all her money, so her ex was ordered to support her for life... this sounds like a corner of the law greatly in need of rethinking.

[jackthehat]

jno - That case was widely under-reported.
The husband went to court to reduce his maintenance obligations but the Judge saw fit to increase them; the ex-wife played very little part.

[Zacs-Master]

Yep, very strange. A divorce case coming down in favour of the man!

[Jackdaw33]

As far as I am aware the law is that parties can divorce after two years but if one party objects the other has to wait five years.

[Gromit]

This was not in a normal Court, but in the Family Court. There is a long list of the Family Court making bizarre decisions, and it should really be abolished and its functions transferred to something more fit for purpose.

This case seems to hinge on proving fault. According to the law, a divorce can only take place when fault is proven, and she seems to have not been able to prove that to the Family Court.

Why would anyone want to stay married to someone who clearly does not want them. Could it possibly be that he does not want to hand any money / assets to his wife if a separation were to be granted?

[Jackdaw33]

I was under the impression that the divorce law reforms of 1970 introduced the concept of no fault divorce, the only grounds being the irretrievable breakdown of marriage. Two years with consent, five years without.

[jim360]

What's particularly bothersome is the man's claim that the marriage is "fine for a few more years" -- when he's being dragged through the courts to get out of it! Either he has no perception of what is going wrong, or... well, control freak much? It's hard not to wonder what his motives are for maintaining something so obviously broken.

[cassa333]

She did say he treated her like a child and it was his way or no way. So seems to be a control freak at the very least.

[EDDIE51]

The only thing that is strange is that the man does not agree to a divorce, as Jackdaw has said in that case the wife has to wait 5 years to get the divorce without consent. It says she tried to get a divorce last year so she has another 4 years to go.
We do not know the full story , very likely the woman does not want to walk out in case she loses her share of the house.

[Dazzleflash]

Of course he is not going to agree to a divorce, it will cost him hundreds of thousands of pounds for one thing. She can leave him at any time but will have to make her own way in the world and I doubt she would want to live on Pension Credits after a life of luxury with her husband.

[ToraToraTora]

another radio barnaby!

[youngmafbog]

why would you not agree to a divorce if it is clear your partner does not like you. Why put yourself through the hell of more years?

The law also appears wrong here too though.

[hc4361]

I've just listened to a woman on Radio 2 who has tried to divorce her husband for years. It has cost her a lot of money and stress and she still is not divorced although she has got the Decree Nisi.
Her husband frustrates every attempt to get the Absolute and she has now given up trying.