Unhappy wife must stay married, court rules
Image copyright PAA woman who says her marriage is unhappy has lost a Supreme Court appeal to be granted a divorce.
Tini Owens, 68, from Worcestershire, wanted the court to grant her a divorce from her husband of 40 years Hugh, who is refusing the split.
The Supreme Court unanimously rejected the appeal, meaning she must remain married until 2020.
Lord Wilson said the case was dismissed "with reluctance" and that it was a question for Parliament.
The couple were married in 1978 and have two adult children.
Mrs Owens said she had been contemplating a divorce since 2012, but did not leave the matrimonial home until February 2015.
She alleged the marriage had broken down irretrievably and that Mr Owens had behaved in such a way that she could not reasonably be expected to live with him.
Mr Owens, 80, has refused to agree to a divorce and denied Mrs Owens' allegations about his behaviour.
He says if their marriage has irretrievably broken down it is because she had an affair, or because she is "bored".
Supreme Court president Lady Hale said she found the case "very troubling" but it was not for judges to "change the law".
The original judge who heard the case found the marriage had broken down, but that Mrs Owens' examples were "flimsy and exaggerated".
- Should it be easier to get a divorce?
- The blame game: Divorcing in the UK
- Reality Check: Are we living happily ever after?
One appeal judge said she reached her conclusion with "no enthusiasm whatsoever" but that Parliament would have to decide whether to introduce "no fault" divorce on demand.
Another said Parliament had "decreed" that being in a "wretchedly unhappy marriage" was not a ground for divorce.
Grounds for divorce in England and Wales:
When you apply for a divorce you must prove your marriage has broken down and give one of the following five reasons:
- Adultery
- Unreasonable behaviour
- Desertion
- You have lived apart for more than two years and both agree to the divorce
- You have lived apart for at least five years, even if your husband or wife disagrees
Source: Gov.UK
Mrs Owens' lawyers said she should not have to prove Mr Owens' behaviour has been "unreasonable", only that she should not "reasonably be expected" to remain with him.
Her lawyers said a "modest shift" of focus in interpretation of legislation was required.
Nigel Dyer QC, who led Mr Owens' legal team, disagreed and raised concerns about the introduction of divorce on "demand".
Mrs Owens had already lost two rounds of the battle.
In 2016 she failed to persuade a family court judge to allow her to divorce and last year three appeal judges ruled against her after a Court of Appeal hearing.
