Wife trapped in 40-year ‘loveless marriage’ with millionaire husband must STAY married as she’s refused divorce by Supreme Court
Five Supreme Court justices have ruled that Tini Owens must stay married to Hugh Owens
A WOMAN who wants to divorce her husband of 40 years because she says their marriage is unhappy has lost a Supreme Court fight.
Five Supreme Court justices have ruled that Tini Owens must stay married to Hugh Owens.
The justices upheld rulings by a Family Court judge and Court of Appeal judges.
Mrs Owens, who is in her late 60s, wants a divorce and says her marriage to Mr Owens, who is in his 80s, is loveless and has broken down.
She says he has behaved unreasonably and that she should not reasonably be expected to stay married.
But Mr Owens refuses to agree to a divorce and denies Mrs Owens' allegations about his behaviour.
He says if their marriage has irretrievably broken down it is because she had an affair, or because she is "bored".
According to Mrs Owens told the court last year that she felt "castigated" by her husband over the affair.
Mr and Mrs Owens married in 1978 and lived in Broadway, Worcestershire, judges have heard.
Mrs Owens petitioned for divorce in 2015 after moving out.
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 Mrs Owens "with reluctance".
He said the "question for Parliament" was whether the law governing "entitlement to divorce" remained "satisfactory".
Lord Wilson indicated that Mrs 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".
Mrs Owens had already lost two rounds of the battle.
In 2016 she failed to persuade a Family Court judge to allow her to divorce.
Last year three appeal judges ruled against her after a Court of Appeal hearing in London.
THEY THINK IT'S ALL OVER: How unhappily married people are not guaranteed divorce
Mrs Owens petitioned for divorce in 2015 after moving out from her family home.
However unlike 99% of divorce cases, her partner contested the petition - and has been successful at each stage of the court process.
Mr Owens disputed the 27 allegations regarding "unreasonable behaviour" detailed in her petition as it was "to be expected in a marriage".
He went on to claim that if their marriage had broken down it is because she had an affair, however he has not pursued a divorce himself on these grounds.
The highest-ranking judges in Britain ended up analysing rival legal arguments, which revolved around concepts of "unreasonable" behaviour and "fault", at a Supreme Court hearing in London in May.
Today Lord Wilson said justices had ruled against Mrs Owens "with reluctance".
He said the "question for Parliament" was whether the law governing "entitlement to divorce" remained "satisfactory".
Lord Wilson indicated that Mrs Owens would have to now wait until 2020 for divorce, when the couple have been separated for five years which would allow them to divorce without the consent of Mr Owens.
MOST READ IN NEWS
They said Mrs Owens had failed to establish that her marriage had, legally, irretrievably broken down and dismissed her challenge to a ruling by Judge Robin Tolson.
One appeal judge said she reached her conclusion with "no enthusiasm whatsoever" but that Parliament would have to decide whether to introduce "no fault" divorce on demand.
Another said Parliament had "decreed" that being in a "wretchedly unhappy marriage" was not a ground for divorce.
Mrs Owens' lawyers say 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.
They say the case is about "proper interpretation" of legislation.
Barrister Philip Marshall QC, who leads Mrs 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".