INGRID KATHLEEN CARR
High Court of Solomon
Islands
Before: Lre: Lungole-Awich, J
Civil Case No. 172 of 1997
Hearing: 5 September 1997
Judgment: 5 September 1997
ass="MsoNormal" style="marg"margin-top: 1; margin-bottom: 1">
Co: N J Carr in Person
p class="MsoNormaNormal" align="center" style="text-align: center; margin-top: 1; margin-bottom: 1">
JUDGMENT
(LUNGOLE
AWICH J):
Mr.b>Mr. Norman John Corn has petitioned the court for order
dissolving his marriage to Ingrid Kathleen Carr. The marriage
was
solemnised in Western Australia. The parties subsequently came to live
in Honiara, Solomon Islands where
they became domiciled. They have not
got a child in the marriage. Matrimonial property has not been mentioned
in the petition.
The petition stated that in
April 1995 Ingrid Carr ed to commit adultery with with one Peter Michael
Lancaster
in Honiara and went off to live with Lancaster in Townsville,
Australia. Norman and Ingrid attempted reconciliation on
17.9.1995 when
the respondent returned to live with the petitioner in Honiara, but left
again for Australia.
Solomon Islands� statutory
l divorce may now be described as obsolete, but until it is t is
changed, it is the
law and the court must do its best to follow it. A
petitioner must still prove the old divorce offences in order to obtain
court order dissolving marriage. The divorce offences are: adultery,
desertion for 3 years, cruelty, incurable
mental illness and that the
husband has committed rape, sodomy or bestiality. In the case of
adultery, the petitioner
must also prove that he or she has not condoned
the adultery. And the petitioner must in the end prove that the divorce
proceeding is not the result of connivance between the petitioner and
respondent, there must be no collision.
The court had the
petitioner testify in court in rt of his petition. An impo important
point to clarify was whether
he has condoned the adultery which has not
been denied. In the viva voce evidence the petitioner clarified
that he intended to reconcile in September 1995. That means he intended
to
condone the adultery. He, however, went on to say that after about 6
to 7 weeks, the respondent went back to Townsville,
Australia and
continued to live with Lancaster. Further adultery was therefore
committed and there has been no
condonation. Unfortunately for the
respondent, her sweetheart found another woman and has now gone to live
with
her in Finland. Although the respondent has contacted the
petitioner, there has been no suggestion of condonation of the
adultery
and no further attempt at reconciliation. The petitioner has proved the
offence of adultery not condoned.
The court pronounces decree nisi of
divorce. The decree nisi may be made absolute in three months� time upon
written application having been filed.
class="Mss="MsoNormal" style="margin-top: 1; margin-bottom: 1">
There has no child of
the marriage and there has not been issue over property. Ancillary
ry
orders are not necessary
and no order as to costs is made.
lass="Mss="MsoNormal" style="margin-top: 1; margin-bottom: 1">
Dated this 5th
day of September 1997
Sam Lungole-Awich
JUDGE
PacLII:
Copyright Policy
|
Disclaimers
|
Privacy Policy
|
Feedback
URL: http://www.paclii.org/sb/cases/SBHC/1997/46.html
