Not allowed to divorce.

The thing is, there are legal rights that come with marriage that can’t be replicated - I arrived my first husband because we were born on different continents and it was the only way we could live together - otherwise we would’ve just co habited. We were seperated for 4 years before I actually filed for divorce under 2 years separation and him agreeing.

I married my second husband because we were having a baby and it gave him automatic parental responsibility, as well as next of kin status - I have no blood family. Again we divorced under 2 years separation and his agreement. We actually live only 5 doors apart and he’s one of my best friends. We just aren’t a compatible couple and our baggage doesn’t fit (he’s scared of abandonment, I’m scared of being tied down. We learned this through relationship counselling).

I only bothered to actually divorce him to marry husband number 3, who is the love of my life. We’re getting on a bit and have a blended family so needed both the next of kin stuff and legal covenants to do with property & inheritance tax etc.

I have them listed in my phone as Hn1, Hn2 and Hn3. They all get along well and I get along with their current partners. Hn2 will be remarrying next year and Hn3 and I will be guests.

Hn3 and I actually recycled witnesses from our first weddings, because friendship often outlasts marriage!

How do you prove unreasonable behaviour though. It's her word against his.

And why the hell should anyone have to try and convince someone else tat the behaviour is mad enough to warrant them Granting something that has no effect on anyone besides the miserable poor sod denied the divorce

This is nothing more than a man exerting control and fighting for his right to do so.

You don't think he's being at all unpleasant and controlling towards her? She doesn't love him and doesn't want to be married to him. Nothing he can do will change that. Refusing to agree to a no fault divorce after two years separation is just simply vindictive.

Yes it is possible to get divorced, but there are conditions required to get a divorce, there is not a right to divorce on demand.
I don't get the outrage directed here at this man. This woman made a promise, if she wants to break it she needs to comply with the legal grounds to get out of the contract she made, ie prove his behaviour to be unreasonable or wait five years.

Terfing, I’ve been married three times and have never vowed to stay with someone for life!

It’s not part of a UK civil ceremony - ultimately a marriage is a legal contract that can be dissolved under specific circumstances.

If you ask me it needs updating. Whole thing dates back to when women were merely views as property .

Things change. End of. And they don't need to justify it to any one.

If one person wants to flog a dead horse for 50 years because you promised something decades ago then thats up to them but otherwise why shouldn't people have the right to walk away when they want or need to.

Thepromose is made to the person at the time. But if those people become different people then the whole thing was based on a lie anyway wasn't it?

The existence of divorce means that it isn't entered into for life. Everyone knows that it is possible to get divorced. Presumably when people get married they hope/intend/believe/wish to stay married for life. And then things change.

But why the fuck would you promise to stay with someone for life, if you want the right to break that promise at any time that it suits you?

Those married people her who effectively want divorce on demand, what were you thinking when you made your promises?
Promises made after the registrar had told you: ''Before you are joined in matrimony I have to remind you of the solemn and binding character of the vows you are about to make. “Marriage, according to the law of this country is the union of two people, voluntarily entered into for life, to the exclusion of all others”.''

I guess this made the news because it went to the supreme court.
I've known several people who's estranged spouses have refused to divorce them - usually petty revenge because the one wanting the divorce has found a new partner and wants to move on with their lives.

I really feel for this poor woman. The judges said that they reached their conclusion very reluctantly. How hideous to be trapped in a marriage you are desperate to leave, just because of the other person's weird need for control, or whatever it is that's going on

Why the fuck would you make someone who doesn't love you stay married to you, for the sake of upholding a promise you made to that same person.

It's not ok to punish someone for having an affair, and to do it for years.

I dunno maybe he takes his own vows a little bit more seriously than she did? I think if he lets the legal timer run down he will be able to look in the mirror and know he did everything he could to avoid divorce?

I can see the point that it’s not at all unreasonable that he was hurt and upset at her affair, and berating your partner for cheating on you is not inherently unreasonable behaviour.

Still it’s only 18 months until 2020, and she can have a divorce irrespective of what he wants in the end.

It's horrendous and it really strikes a chord for me personally.

I avoided this in that, when I had to take my divorce to the courts against ex's will, the judge was 'kind' enough to acknowledge that he was, indeed, behaving unreasonably (i.e. refusing to get a steady job whilst expecting me to finance a series of entrepreneurial non-starters as well as the remittances his family expected of him).

Still, I found the experience humiliating and felt deprived of any right to self-determination in that I was basically having to petition a judge to let me stop another person from exploiting me against my will. I can only imagine how much worse this would feel if my partner had actually been abusive as opposed to just lazy and unreasonable!

IMO, divorce should always be granted within a reasonable timeframe if one partner wants it. Being married, surely, should not require lower standards of consent than no-strings sex?

I'm sure many people work to save their marriages

What's the point in staying together cos you are married when you are bith miserable and don't love each other any more?

You can't get that back just because you made a commitment 10 years ago. Things change. People change and staying out of obligation is no way to live.

If you care anything about a person do you not want them to be happy? Why make them stay

I am not and never will be married, but for people who think marriage means something, doesn't the idea that you can just get a divorce on demand, rather than because of the other person's behaviour, devalue the promises you make to the other person when you married them?
What is the point in going through a ceremony where you promise to make a commitment to someone, not for life, but just for as long as you feel like?

According to this she did have an affair herself (so he probably doesn’t want her to be happy with someone else) - www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2017/mar/24/tini-owens-trapped-loveless-marriage-judges-refuse-divorce

She applied on grounds of unreasonable behaviour. The judge obvs decided that the behaviour wasn't unreasonable enough. She'll have to reapply using other grounds.

This man is an absolute asshole though - the sole acceptable reason for divorce in the U.K. is that the marriage has ‘irretrievably broken down’ - at 5 years separation no proof is required, at 2 years separation no proof is required but both spouses must agree to dissolve the marriage, and before 2 years the breakdown must be due to adultery/unreasonable behaviour/desertion but proof is required (and it can be contested by the respondent).

The only reason I can see for him to continue to refuse to set his wife free is abusive control or him hoping she’ll die of old age before the alimony payments begin :/

I think after 5 years it can be granted without agreement.

But I think the same, if refusing to divorce isn't unreasonable behaviour enough to grant a divorce, then there's something screwy with the law!

I’m of the same sort of thinking. I’m not necessarily a fan of divorce being quick and easy, but I do think it is unreasonable to refuse a divorce on the grounds of one half of the couple not wanting it to happen. She’s made it clear she no longer wishes to have a relationship with him so I don’t quite understand why it’s acceptable for him just to say no and that be enough?

It rather incentivises people who are thinking of getting divorced to have an affair before they get to court.

Cos that will sort it presumably.

People should be able to get a divorce if they want to. Why would you want to stay together when one of you wants a divorce. What's the point it doesn't change anything. It's just being difficult and treating the person like a possession. I don't want you but no one else can either. It's no ones business except the couple's surely ?

At 5 years separation you can get a divorce without the other person agreeing.