Woman refused a divorce by court.

It doesn't ring true for me , I see no reason for the divorce unless it's for money

I think it's terrible because no one should be tied in marriage to someone they don't want to be tied to. What if she wished to marry again, what if she wants to get on with her life. If she became very ill, he is her next of kin. Five years is a long time. She might despise him, he may have treated her terribly, you can't always prove these things. If she is in an accident and is incapable of speaking for herself, he gets to make all medical decisions about her.

Basically this woman is being forced to be married to someone she doesn't want to be married to. It makes no difference if she has money or not. He might not want to divorce because he will have to split their wealth 50:50.

I can't thing of any good reason to prolong a marriage that makes both of you miserable for different reasons other than spite.

I expect the five-year requirement is to protect the rights and welfare of everyone, particularly children. Maybe five years is a bit too long but I can see why it's there.

We've had a number of Grans who've told of how they've been abandoned in older age, or have a daughter with young children who's been abandoned. Most times the man has gone off with a new love.

A quick 'divorce on demand' could be disastrous for the reluctant soon-to-be divorcee. How can property, assets, maintenance, etc be fairly dealt with when it's been sprung upon you, and you are not the one who's been scheming and planning?

Obviously 'innocent' parties can suffer e.g. someone who escapes abuse and the spiteful partner refuses a divorce as a further way of controlling, but the law applies to everyone no matter how seemingly unfair in some circumstances.

He isn't necessarily her next of kin , you can name any one to that roll , my OH isn't my NOK , I have named my eldest DD

Perhaps she hurt him badly when she had the affair , she has said she did.

So she is no different to husbands who dump their wives but she gets sympathy here for some reason

From reading reports on the court judgement, it seems clear that the Judges believe that it is an unsatisfactory state of affairs but that only Parliament can change the law - this is not a case where they can reinterpret current statute. There's no need to be concerned about quicker divorces causing problems re financial arrangements etc - a judge would not grant a divorce until that had been resolved and agreed. It's just ridiculous in this day and age that she is trapped into the marital state for some time to come. I can quite understand that she wants to draw a legal line under what is a dead marriage - why shouldn't she? He is just punishing her - there can't be any other reason why he's being so difficult

My view would be the same whatever the sex of the marriage partner. This reminds me a bit of Orthodox Jewish Law where a man ( never the woman though) can refuse to grant his wife a divorce ( a 'get') which then prevents her remarrying and staying within the faith

If she is financially well off (sounds like it) if she has decent housing(sounds like it) if she's lived independently for two years( sounds like it) she's blooming laughing My poor nephew (and many like him) whose marriage has broken up has to live in the same house as his wife as financially there is no way either can buy the other out so the kids are brought up with two loving parents who are having to tip toe around the case they are not together he spends some nights at his parents she does a couple of night night work but a thoroughly wretched case neither feels able to move on and perhaps meet another person
I don't know why she's upset and we really don't know his side of the story either but looks like she's in a good enough place and just needs to be patient

So affairs in a marriage much be accepted and met with understanding?

A friend of mine acted this way when her H left her for another woman. She was so bitter and remained that way over every aspect of her life until she died at the age of 72, the unhappiest woman I have ever known. Her former H went on to live a very happy life with his eventual wife and although sadly he now has dementia, she has cared for him in the most loving and wonderful way.

But acted what way? All we know is what the woman claims , she didn't have a problem having an affair so not the most trustworthy of people

I think it's a bit of a jump saying that affairs in a marriage must be accepted and understood when I'm arguing that people should be able to get out of marriages that clearly aren't working without having to wait 5 years. I think 2 years would be fine. Many marriages actually do survive affairs - others don't. You can't legislate for that. Before divorce was reformed at the end of the 1960s, the law was abused by the well off whilst the poor were trapped. I know in this case that they are seriously rich but she's trapped and it seems wrong.

Hum that's not quite clear is it - I mean that my thinking that the marriage should be able to be finished doesn't mean that think affairs should be accepted and understood

so anyone bored with their spouse should just opt out ? Walk away?

By saying my friend acted in this way I meant she made her H wait 5 years before he could get a divorce. He also was not allowed one after 2 years.

Surely to all intents and purposes a marriage is finished once one partner is no longer committed to it?
Its certainly not the saddest thing I've heard of. She'll be fine, and she'll have to wait it out.

Also if someone is bored with their marriage, they can just walk away now. I wouldn't want to be in a marriage where my partner no longer loved me or showed that he didn't want to be with me for whatever reason.

Be interesting to see the response if anyone should say they husband has had an affair and wants a divorce . Can we expect - why should he stay in a loveless marriage

Why should anyone have to remain married when they don't want to? When I escaped I wanted to be divorced asap but had to wait two years. My ex only agreed as long as I paid for it which I willingly did.

Why would a partner refuse when the marriage has irretrievably broken down? Is it the last element of control?

Whether this woman is comfortably off or not is irrelevant as it the fact that she had an affair. She does not want to be married to this man anymore ergo the marriage is over.

Time for them both to divorce and move on.

Opposing a family court ruling made last year by Judge Robin Tolson, who refused to grant a divorce petition on the basis her allegations were "of the kind to be expected in marriage", she took the case to the Court of Appeal

her allegations were of the kind to be expected in marriage makes the state of marriage sound like a truly dismal battleground.

Doesn't say much for the judge's marriage does it lol. I don't expect DH to make me unhappy and I don't expect to make him feel unhappy. It's not my view of what a marriage should be. Your husband/wife should be the person you feel most comfortable and safe with no matter what not someone who makes you unhappy.

Why get married if one holds no value to the vows

Such a long marriage suggests that vows were valued but the relationship is dead. The judges understood that. Up the law in its current state won't allow this woman the divorce she wants. What's in it for the husband, other than to exert power and control. I'd take the same view if the genders were reversed.

The situation of this particular woman is not of concern to me - I'm more concerned with those at the lower end of the financial scale who could be bamboozled into a quick divorce because their spouse wants to 'move on'.

Marriages fail - mine did, and we separated after 25 years. What would have been unfair would be if one of us had decided to bale-out and demand a quick divorce, leaving the other at a disadvantage and possibly agree to an unfair settlement.