Hasan Suroor | The Hindu | May 31, 2006
http://www.hindu.com/2006/05/31/stories/2006053107421100.htm
THE FACE of modern British marriage and divorce is predicted to
change profoundly as, for the first time, the stay-at-home wife's
contribution to the family has been legally recognised as being on a
par with that of the "bread-winner." Henceforth, in the event of a
divorce a woman, who gives up her career to bring up children and
look after the home, will theoretically be entitled to an equal
share in the family's assets created during the marriage.
A ground-breaking ruling by the House of Lords, Britain's highest
court, has obliterated the traditional and somewhat perverse
distinction between the home-maker and the breadwinner on grounds
that a marriage must be regarded as an alliance of "equal partners"
and that the contribution of the partner, who stays home to raise
the family, is no less important than the one who brings home the
bread.
Nation divided
The ruling, which has split the nation on gender lines and provoked
some extremely sexist jokes, came at the end of two protracted and
headline-grabbing divorce cases involving millionaire couples.
In the more controversial of the two cases Melissa Miller, 36, whose
marriage lasted less than three years, was awarded £5 million out of
more than £17 million that her husband Alan Miller, a high-flying
banker, made during the period they were together. They split when
the husband decided to leave Ms. Miller for another woman. In
awarding her £5 million, which some viewed as too high considering
that the marriage did not last even three years, the court took into
account the fact that she gave up an £85,000 a year job when she
married Mr. Miller in 2,000.
It also held that the "accretion" to the husband's wealth during the
marriage was "very substantial."
The size of the award in relation to the short duration of the
marriage has raised eyebrows and Ms. Miller has been called a "gold-
digger" who married a rich man for money.
But as Lord Nicholls, who presided over the five-member bench,
pointed out, the award represented a fraction of the husband's total
wealth "less than one sixth" of his £32 million fortune. And, one-
third of what was generated during the marriage.
In the second and what is regarded as a morel typical case, Julia
McFarlane, 46, was married for 16 years and the couple have three
children. When she married Kenneth McFarlane she was already a
successful solicitor and earned more than him, but after their
second child the couple decided that she should give up her career
and devote herself fully to family care. Since 1991, she had been a
full-time "home-carer" while also helping her husband with his
practice which now fetches him upwards of £700,000 a year.
Ms. McFarlane has been awarded £250,000 a year for an indefinite
period on grounds that she must be compensated for the loss of her
career when she married, and that her husband's earnings were the
result of "the parties' joint endeavours at the earlier stages of
his professional career."
It is now commonplace for career-women to take a break indeed they
are often under pressure to do so once they marry and have
children but until now their contribution to the family was not
legally recognised, and divorce settlements in case of stay-at-home
mums centred on maintenance or her "living costs" rather than her
right to a share in the family assets.
The new ruling, said to be the most revolutionary judgment on
divorce in more than two decades, changes all that and for the first
time recognises that "there should be no bias in favour of the money-
earner and against the home-maker and the child-carer."' Equally
significantly, it lays down that the length of a marriage is
irrelevant in deciding a settlement.
The reaction has been largely along gender lines with women hailing
it as a landmark judgment which recognises the realities of modern
life and the sacrifices a woman is required to make as a wife and a
mother.
"This will undoubtedly be welcomed by women who have agreed to put
their career prospects second to the needs of their husband and
children. They can now expect to be compensated for that sacrifice,"
said Susie Barter, a leading family law specialist.
Experts said the ruling might deter men, especially wealthy men,
from marrying. They also anticipated a surge in pre-nuptial
agreements which, though not legally binding, could serve
as "protection" against heavy payouts in the event of a divorce.
"My advice is 1. don't marry; 2. if you do make sure your other half
is as wealthy as you are; and 3. do a prenuptial agreement and keep
your fingers crossed," said Mr. McFarlane's lawyer, Jeremy Levison,
in one of the more sexist male reactions.
--
This is ZESTGlobal. Post articles on international affairs to [email protected]
If you got this mail as a forward, subscribe to ZESTGlobal by sending a blank mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] OR, if you have a Yahoo! ID, by visiting http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ZESTGlobal/join/
SPONSORED LINKS
| Writing book | Writing a book | Writing child book |
| Book writing software | Writing a book report | Business writing book |
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
- Visit your group "ZESTGlobal" on the web.
- To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
- Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
