Carr v Carr [1997] SBHC 46; HC-CC 172 of 1997 (5 September 1997)

class="MsoTitleTitle" style="margin-top: 1; margin-bottom: 1" align="center"> HIGH COURT OF THE SOLOMON ISLANDS

Civil Case No. 172 of 1997

NORMAN JOHN CARR

v

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 5^th day of September 1997

Sam Lungole-Awich
JUDGE