Divorce laws amended: no-fault divorce, ex-wives maintenance of ex-husbands

The National Assembly on Wednesday unanimously amended the Matrimonial Causes Act to allow for a wife or husband to petition the court for divorce without showing fault, and for an ex-wife to provide cash maintenance of her ex-husband.

Attorney General and Minister of Legal Affairs Anil Nandlall told the House that the husband and wife, who are seeking the divorce, must prove to the judge that they have been living “separate and apart” for at least six months before the petition is presented. “You want an opportunity to see whether there can be a reconciliation so the parties can have that period,” he said. He said that timeframe would also help to show the court that there was no collusion between the husband and wife. The law also provides for being separate and apart although they are living in the same premises and might pr0vide some household services to ensure there is harmony and no harm after the divorce.

Opposition A Partnership for National Unity+Alliance For Change (APNU+AFC) parliamentarian, Haimraj Rajkumar said, “we do support the amendments” after rehashing the existing provisions and amendments.

Mr Nandlall explained to the National Assembly that prior to the amendment of the almost 90-year-old law, spouses were required to petition for a divorce citing that the other party was guilty of adultery, cruelty, unsound mind for at least five years prior, sodomy, desertion and bestiality. But on Wednesday, that law was amended to add “irreconcilable differences which have caused irremediable breakdown of the marriage.” “You can either prove those grounds. We are not taking away those grounds. Anyone, who wishes to go to court and go the traditional method of proving fault, they have the right and the freedom to do so but those who wish not to travel that road that has been so arduous, as established by experience, can now go on the ground that you have an irretrievable breakdown of the marriage due to irreconcilable differences and it gives you the right and the freedom not to detail what they are,” he said in piloting debate of the amendments.

Before the amendment, if the court did not dissolve the marriage, the spouses would remain “locked in matrimony against their will”, and resulted in the parties publishing “bedroom matters” that caused further destruction while parenting their children, the Minister said. However, the amendment on Wednesday now allows people to divorce without citing cause which can lead to protracted legal proceedings, or engaging in “backroom” deals not to challenge the divorce proceedings.

Mr Nandlall noted that Guyana’s Matrimonial Causes Act, inherited from Britain at the time of independence in 1966, was repealed by its former colonial power 51 years ago. “What societal values were 90 years ago, what family values were 90 years ago, what social realities and legal realities were 90 years ago are radically different from what they are today so by sheer passage of time this law requires reform,” he said.

The Attorney General also said the Matrimonial Causes Act was amended to allow women to pay their ex-husbands alimony, in line with the High Court’s ruling that the provision prior to Wednesday that required an ex-husband only to provide financial support to his divorced wife was unconstitutional on the grounds of discrimination and equal treatment. “I conceded that the Act, indeed, was offensive to the different provisions of the constitution that speak to equality of treatment and we gave an undertaking that we will come to the Parliament to correct that unconstitutionality,” he said in recalling his position in a court case that was brought by a member of the public. The law empowers the court to determine twelve factors including the amount of alimony on the basis of state of health of the parties, income, property, financial resource, physical and mental capacity, gainful employment, custody of child, financial needs and obligations of each party. The law provides for lumpsum, weekly, monthly or other periodic payment instalments.

APNU+AFC’s Mr Rajkumar welcomed the removal of that discriminatory provision that put the wife and husband on “equal footing.” His colleague opposition lawmaker, Geeta Chandan-Edmond noted that a United States Supreme Court had made a landmark ruling in 1979 that alimony must apply to both husband and wife.