Britain’s Supreme Court has “reluctantly” rejected an appeal from a woman seeking a divorce from her husband of 40 years, ending a three-year legal battle and heaping pressure on lawmakers to overhaul divorce law in England and Wales.
Tini Owens, 68, first filed a petition to divorce her 80-year-old husband, Hugh, when they separated in 2015, but he objected to the split.
According to legal documents, Owens alleged that Hugh prioritized his work over their relationship, that he lacked affection, was often moody and that he belittled her in front of others. This led her to feel “unhappy, unappreciated, upset and embarrassed,” and after many years, she said that she had “grown apart from him.”
The couple has two adult children and Owens argued that there was “no prospect whatsoever” that she and her husband would ever live together again.
But even though the court said that it found the case to be “very troubling” and noted that it raised “uneasy feelings,” it ruled that Owens will have to remain married to Hugh until 2020, at which point they will have been separated for five years.
“It is not for us to change the law laid down by parliament,” Lady Brenda Hale, the president of the Supreme Court, writes in the decision. “Our role is only to interpret and apply the law that parliament has given us.”
At issue was a portion of the Matrimonial Causes Act of 1973, which says that courts cannot grant a quick divorce unless a husband or wife cites adultery, “unreasonable behaviour” or desertion as the reason for the divorce.
When that is not the case, the law states that the couple must have lived apart for two years and both parties must consent to divorce for it to be granted. If one partner objects, as Hugh did in this case, then the couple must live apart for five years before being granted a divorce.
“This was a case which depended upon the cumulative effect of a great many small incidents said to be indicative of authoritarian, demeaning and humiliating conduct over a period of time,” Hale wrote.
“Those who have never experienced such humiliation may find it difficult to understand how destructive such conduct can be of trust and confidence which should exist in any marriage.”
Nevertheless, she was not convinced that Hugh’s behaviour met the bar for “unreasonable behaviour” and was “reluctantly persuaded that this appeal should be dismissed.”
Simon Beccle, Owens’ attorney, said the public would find the decision “hard to understand.”
The decision has sparked debate about whether divorce laws in England and Wales are archaic and has renewed calls for “no fault” divorces, where neither party is blamed, to be made legal.
David Gaule, the U.K. justice secretary, said in February that he would consider it.
With files from The Associated Press
