§ NEGLECT BY PARTY TO MARRIAGE TO MAINTAIN OTHER PARTY OR CHILD OF THE FAMILY
§ Sir D. RentonI beg to move Amendment No. 12, in page 6, line 14, leave out ' (a) being the husband '.
I suggest, Mr. Rogers, that with this Amendment we take Amendment No. 13, in page 6, line 20, leave out paragraph (b).
§ Sir D. RentonThis is a small but important point, which my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Bruce Campbell) had in mind in putting down the Amendment. No doubt it is only in rare cases that a rich wife who was, perhaps, a guilty party in a divorce, had a crock of a husband —perhaps a husband who was badly mutilated in the war—and might well be capable of making provision for him. Under the Clause as it stands she would seem to have no obligation to do so. The 1946 Amendment would provide that husband and wife should be put on exactly the same footing in respect of the obligation to maintain where there had been a neglect by either party of the marriage to maintain the other party or a child of the family.
The two very simple though sweeping Amendments put down by my hon. and learned Friend would achieve just the object that I have mentioned, and I hope that the right hon. and learned Gentleman can tell us why—
§ Mr. David Weitzman (Stoke Newington and Hackney North)Surely subsection (1)(b)(i) provides exactly for those circumstances. It provides for the wife's contributing towards maintenance
in a case where, by reason of the impairment of the applicant's earning capacity through age, illness or disability of mind or body, and having regard to any resources of the applicant… which are, or should properly be made, available for the purpose….
§ Sir D. RentonThat may be so. The Solicitor-General may give that answer. But the mischief that my hon. and learned Friend was trying to cure is contained in paragraph (a), which starts with the phrase
being the husband, has wilfully neglectedI should have thought that the selection of the husband as the only party to be caught by that paragraph was wrong, and that as a matter of simple legislative provision it would be far better for that paragraph to apply to both husband and wife. Paragraph (b) would then be unnecessary.
§ Mr. WeitzmanThe provision in Clause 6 is a very suitable and reasonable one. We all know that where a husband neglects his wife he has a duty to provide for his wife and family, and it would be a very hard circumstance for a wife to have to provide for her husband. But the very circumstances where such a case might arise are amply provided for in sub-paragraph (b), as I pointed out in my interjection, and I think the Amendment should be rejected—
§ It being Ten o'clock, The CHAIRMANleft the Chair to report Progress and ask leave to sit again
§ Committee report Progress