Woman refused a divorce by court.

Also, I wonder how many reluctant divorcees do actually use the five-year rule, for whatever reason?

I suspect it's not many - personally know of only one case.

IMO the law should remain, with a review to maybe reduce it to three or four years.

But vows were not valued, she had an affair

Vampire queen you are only seeing it from one side Your argument is she had enough so marriage it should be over, well he obviously hasn't had enough for whatever reason She's already had an affair within the marriage so I m sure she wouldn't feel too hesitant in having 'friends' in her life and I think she's got the best of both worlds,if he kicks the bucket before the five years is up she ll probably get half his assets anyway .....she's on a roll plenty of money, nice house, no washing or clearing up after the man she can't stand win win situation .....Patience lady only three years to go
Don't forget we aren't privy to what's really gone on in their lives only what the media can guess at

Some interesting and revealing views of what should happen when a very long marriage that to all intents and purposes is dead. Ok she had an affair but for all we know she kept her vows for decades something only known to the couple. She is obviously going to be fine and dandy financially whatever happens.

Its obvious we don't all agree but that's the beauty of GN we can agree to differ.

I agree Bluebell. I wonder why she wants the divorce enough to fight in the courts. all we know is what she claims

Are you honestly saying that anyone male or female should be forced to remain married even when they no longer want to be? Why?

The divorce laws must have been put in place for a reason. I agree that five years is a long time to wait if one party doesn't consent, but there might be circumstances we know nothing about where it might be appropriate.

Would you think it fair to grant a divorce to either party just on demand?

We all change as we age. Marriages in the !ast century did not last as marriages today as people did not live as long.
To stay the same person you were at 20/ 25 until you reach the age of60/65 is quite a feat.
We age differently and our values change. The law made in those days should change to reflect this.

The current Matrimonial Causes Act came into force in 1973, but I honestly don't see how it could be made more fair.

Vampire queen she is only married in name she s not having to look after the dreaded husband she isn't cooking, washing , or having to have sex with a man she can't stand ..... what's the harm in waiting unless of course the next one is chomping at the bit to marry her ......... I could understand if she was having to look after him in the house and in bed then you would understand how distasteful it would be but she's waiting in what sounds like a very comfortable lifestyle ....so where's the harm

I m not saying the 5 year wait is right I m just saying as it's there it isn't really harming her in her situation why not just grit her teeth and get on with it like everyone else has to until the law is changed if it ever is

I think two years ( as it is if there's consent) is perfectly adequate - five years is an extremely long time and there are scenarios where this would be truly awful. The issue is much bigger than this one case.

The courts didn't consider being asked to help the housekeeper to pick up cardboard off the lawn or feeling mistrusted after having an affair to be truely awful.

This woman's reasons were so petty compared to the reasons many divorces are granted for

Having lived in a country where most of my adult life the laws are: no fault divorce after a year, if you want and you have around two years to settle your affairs. I admit I find it bizarre that the courts in the UK can decide whether a person can divorce or not. It just seems old fashioned, intrusive and nobody else's business.

Some points I am wondering about: what happens during those five years if one of the couple inherit or come into alarge sum of money; or they buy property; or start/sell a business. Are these things taken into account when at the end of the five years the property is split? If their financial situation changes drastically for the good while they live separately and can't divorce. Do they then have to share their new found wealth?

My other question is while they are still married during the five years they are waiting for a divorce if they have a sexual relationship are they considered to be unfaithful.

Another reason for finding five years too long: a woman in her mid thirties leaves her husband because she is unhappy. He won't divorce her, so she has to wait five years to get a divorce. She meets another man, wants to have children, her years of being fertile are running out. She can't marry the father of her child and being an unmarried mother puts her in a vulnerable position. If this relationship breaks down or her partner dies while her children are young she is not entitled to any property, even though she has given up working to have children. The laws in the UK are that if the couple are not married their circumstances are not the same as a couple who have married.

Excellent post Faye

I agree an excellent post Faye, I also think at 65+ as this lady is every day is precious never mind 5 yrs, who knows what health problems may occur in the next 5 years.
No one said anything about 'instant divorce' only that to wait 5 yrs tied to a dead marriage is unreasonable.

Just my opinion but if I had had to wait 5 yrs for my divorce I would in that time been tied to an impossible to deal with alcoholic and to save my children having to deal with his many many dramas I would of had to step in and deal with it. As it was he was glad to agree to the divorce so he could marry again and the lady in question had that dubious task.

The five years does not apply to every divorce not even contested divorces

Five years is too long in any circumstances. If they're going to change their minds it's going to happen in two years. If it happens years after the divorce they can always marry again.

When I divorced my ex, it was on the grounds that the marriage had irretrievably broken down, due to his infidelity and violence. He tried to counter-petition on the grounds of my adultery, and immediately was refused legal aid to fight the divorce, which went through virtually "on the nod". If the woman in question (I don't know the individual case) has left him, it's only a matter of time before the divorce can be automatic. But remember that solicitors have a duty to do what they can to bring about reconciliation.

I have several thoughts about this.

My late father wanted to divorce his controlling and manipulative wife. He was named in my grandmother's will and she was in her 80s. The wife refused and made him wait out the full 5 years, hoping in the meantime my grandma would die and therefore she would get more money in the divorce. There were no children involved, the woman just expected my father to support her life style. Luckily my grandmother outlived the 5 years so the woman just got a minimal amount. She was unbelievably controlling and was the reason I was estranged from my father for 4 years. I am so glad she didn't get the money she was scheming for.

I was involved myself a while back with a very controlling man and I am very glad we didn't get married. I wonder if this ruling will put young people off getting married, it certainly would put me off.

Marriage vows need to be changed, forget better or worse, till death do us part and replace with - untill I get bored with you

I read your link tanith and immediately thought this must be all to do with money somewhere along the line. Presumably if the wife can get a divorce she can also get a financial settlement and the hubbie isnt too keen on that idea.

Maybe (in line with Annie's posts as well as others) getting divorced should be easier and getting married more difficult

If she has already been living separately from her husband for two years and seems to be self sufficient financially, then I don't understand how he can be affecting her life. She does not have to see him or have contact with him and can report him to the police if he is harassing her. Personally, I thought you only had to be separated for two years if there were no dependent children but that must be if both parties agree. I suppose he is making a point and being stubborn by not agreeing to a divorce as the marriage has obviously irreconcilably broken down but the judge is only following the law.

He is 78, expect the thought of selling his home for his unfaithful wife isn't something he wants to do

Faye. Totally agree. Why should their be a reason or fault for a divorce. People fall out of love. We live longer . Should we really expect to be the same people in our twenties and thirties as we are in our sixties and seventies. It would be purgatory having to still have contact with someone you have no feeling for and want to be free. Perhaps get your name back.