S v S and G (High Court Civil Cause 39 of 1941) [1941] ZMHCNR 20 (31 December 1941)

246 Vol. II] S. v. S. AN D G. High Court Civ il Cause Ho . 39 of 1941. Divorce—shortening time for making decree absolute— wartime conditions— public policy. A decree nisi was pronounced on 9th February, 1942. In normal times the decree could not have been made absolute until 9th August, 1942. The co-respondent was in the army and was likely to be sent out o f the Territory to an unknown destination before 9th August, 1942. The High Court shortened the time for making the decree absolute for the reasons set out in the order reported below. The period between the pronouncement o f a decree nisi and its being made absolute is now three months unless the Court shall fix a shorter time, see P. v. P ., p. 221 ante. Law, C. J .: This is an application to expedite the making o f a decree absolute. The decree nisi was granted by this Court on the 9th February, 1942. In ordinary circumstances it could n ot be m ade absolute before the 9th August, 1942, a matter o f another m onth and ten days. Every application o f this nature must be considered in the light of its own particular circumstances. For this purpose I do not view the circumstances in the case o f P. v. P . (1927) 44 T . L . R ., p. 114, as strictly relevant to or o f assistance in the present application. W hat I feel is of paramount importance is the question o f public policy. In m y view this principle cannot be offended against b y granting this application. The object of fixing the usual period o f six m onths from the date o f granting the decree nisi is, as pointed out in the case o f Beeves v. Reeves (1940) P., p. 28, to enable inquiries to be made into the bona fides o f the peti­ tioner’s case. This question does not arise in the present case where only the question o f public policy need be considered. The co-respondent is liable to be sent away from this Territory on active service at any moment, maybe to one or m ore destinations where he cannot marry the respondent and where he m ay remain for a long and indefinite time. His movements and those o f the respondent cannot be controlled by either o f them. In peace tim e I w ould hesitate to accede to this application. In war time conditions are vastly different. To refuse this application might be to work an injustice on the respondent and the co-respondent after the 9th August next on which date they will probably be separated, perhaps indefinitely. In all the foregoing circum­ stances I allow this application and w ould hereby make the decree absolute to-day.