The Supreme Court has ordered a woman to stay married to her husband of 40 years, rejecting her attempts to divorce him because the marriage is “loveless and has broken down”.
Tini Owens, who is in her late sixties, has been told she cannot divorce Hugh Owens, 78, despite claiming their marriage has broken down following an affair she had several years ago.
Ms Owens argued that her husband has behaved unreasonably and that she should not reasonably be expected to stay married.
But Mr Owens refused to agree to a divorce and denied the allegations about his behaviour, saying that if their marriage had irretrievably broken down it was because she had an affair, or because she was “bored”.
Supreme Court justices analysed rival legal arguments, which revolved around concepts of “unreasonable” behaviour and “fault”, at a Supreme Court hearing in London in May and delivered a ruling on Wednesday.
One, Lord Wilson, said justices had ruled against Ms Owens “with reluctance”, saying the “question for Parliament” was whether the law governing “entitlement to divorce” remained “satisfactory”.
Lord Wilson indicated that Ms Owens would be able to divorce in 2020, when the couple have been separated for five years.
Another, Supreme Court president Lady Hale, said she found the case “very troubling”, but she said it was not for judges to “change the law”.
Ms Owens has already lost two rounds of the legal battle since she petitioned for divorce in 2015 after moving out of their home in Broadway, Worcestershire.
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 in London.
The judges said Ms Owens had failed to establish that her marriage had, legally, irretrievably broken down and dismissed her challenge to a ruling by Judge Robin Tolson.
Ms Owens' lawyers said she should not have to prove that Mr Owens' behaviour has been “unreasonable” - only that she should not “reasonably be expected” to remain with him.
Barrister Philip Marshall QC, who leads Ms Owens' legal team, told Supreme Court justices that a “modest shift” of focus in interpretation of legislation was required.
But barrister Nigel Dyer QC, who leads Mr Owens' legal team, disagreed and raised concern about the introduction of divorce on “demand”.
