Family Law - case study Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 2500 words

Family Law - case study - Essay ExampleIn this case, there is no adultery. Dorothy can get divorce by consent if George agrees to it. It is the easiest vogue as there ar a few problems in this divorce. George is not of incurably unsound mind. The 1937 Act allowed divorce for misfortune and 1964 decision of the House of Lords allowed inhuman treatment as a ground for divorce. George cannot be divorced warestairs cruelty, adultery and physical and mental violence, and hence, mutual consent would be the best way for the divorce. concord to Divorce Reform Act 1969, provided that the sole ground on which a petition for divorce may be presented to the court..shall be that the marriage has broken trim down irretrievably (11-008, p.275). Desertion for a continuous period of at least two years cannot be a ground here. Nor George has behaved in such a way that the petitioner could not reasonably be expected to live with the respondent. Parties have not lived apart for two years. Accordin g to the Act, court has to grant a divorce decree unless it is satisfied on all the evidence that the marriage has not broken down irretrievably. If Dorothy insists that marriage has broken down, it is impossible for George to prove otherwise. on that point are no children under the age of 16 in this case. Marital breakdown becomes the main issue, as Dorothy believes that her marriage cannot be saved. If she shews a statement under section 5(1)(a) on the marital breakdown, she has to state that1. The party is aware of the reflection and consideration period under section 7 2. Wishes to make arrangements for the future. If both make the statements, each of them have to state the above. Dorothy has to prove that George spends all his time and money on his hobby, neglecting her and home. She has to prove negligence on his part and also that she is shouldering all the indebtedness on her own. Another point in Dorothys favour is that she should be able to prove that Georges financial c ontribution to the family home had been inadequate for years. Meeting with the marriage proponent becomes an important prerequisite of divorce. According to Family Law Act, 1996, there is no point in allowing the empty legal shell of the marriage to continue, when the actual marriage has already broken down completely. With the divorce, Dorothy will also be entitled to the share of the property, if any. She is also entitled for retirement benefit sharing, pension sharing and Cretney et al (2002), Principles of Family Law, (Family Law Act, 1996, 11-043 to 11-057, pp. 297 - 309). Ancillary easement can be made to either of the party, as in the eyes of law both are equal. In spite of that, Ancillary orders mostly are made in favour of the wives, mainly because their need and closeness to children is thought to be more important. No doubt, every case is weighed according to