THURSDAY, MARCH 8, 1984
2
* SECOND TO EXCLUDE THE OFFENDING HUSBAND FROM THE MATRIMONIAL
HOME REGARDLESS OF WHETHER HE OWNS IT AND,
*
THIRD TO RESTRAIN THE OFFENDING HUSBAND FROM MOLESTING HER OR THE CHILDREN OF THE FAMILY EVEN IF THERE ARE NO MATRIMONIAL PROCEEDINGS PENDING.
THESE EFFECTIVE REMEDIES TENDED TO PROVIDE A LONG TERM SOLUTION, BUT WERE NOT YET APPLICABLE TO HONG KONG.
+I PERSONALLY BELIEVE THAT IT IS TIME THAT WE GAVE SERIOUS CONSIDERATION TO ADOPTING THEM,
+IN FACT, THE LEGAL DEPARTMENT HAS ALREADY GIVEN CONSIDERATION TO THIS AND EXAMINED THE IMPLICATIONS.
+THE MATTER NOW HAS TO BE CONSIDERED BY THE OTHER
BRANCHES OF GOVERNMENT CONCERNED, + MR NAZARETH SAID.
+AFFILIATION PROCEEDINGS+ MR NAZARETH SAID WAS GIVEN TO THE LEGAL ACTION THAT AN UNMARRIED WOMAN WHO HAS OR IS EXPECTING A CHILD COULD TAKE AGAINST THE FATHER,
+THE OBJECT IS TO GET THE COURT TO DECLARE HIM TO BE THE FATHER AND TO ORDER HIM TO PAY FOR THE CHILD'S MAINTENANCE.
+OUR LEGISLATION PROVIDES THAT THE MAXIMUM THAT THE FATHER CAN BE ORDERED TO PAY IS $500 PER WEEK. THIS CAN BE ENTIRELY INADEQUATE WHERE THE PARTIES COME FROM A REASONABLY WELL-OFF BACKGROUND OR WHERE THE CARE THE CHILD NEEDS PREVENTS THE MOTHER FROM WORKING, HE SAID.
IN A RECENT HIGH COURT CASE, HE SAID, THE JUDGE CAME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT A WEALTHY FATHER WAS DELIBERATELY RESTRICTING HIS CONTRIBUTIONS TO HIS CHILD'S MOTHER, WITH WHOM HE HAD FALLEN OUT, TO OBTAIN CUSTODY OF THE CHILD. THE JUDGE FELT HE WAS NOT ABLE TO AWARD AN AMOUNT OF MAINTENANCE THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN JUST AND THAT THE FATHER COULD WELL AFFORD, BECAUSE OF THE $500 LIMIT.
+THAT LIMIT NEEDS, IN MY VIEW, TO BE REMOVED AND WE HAVE ALREADY EMBARKED UPON THE PROCESS OF REPLACING IT WITH A PROVISION THAT WOULD ENABLE THE COURTS TO AWARD SUCH AMOUNTS AS WOULD BE REASONABLE HAVING REGARD TO THE MEANS OF THE PARENT,+ MR NAZARETH SAID.
WITH REGARD TO THE LAW OF DIVORCE, DEVELOPMENT RELATED TO THE RESTRICTION CONTAINED IN THE MATRIMONIAL CAUSES ORDINANCE ON PETITIONS FOR DIVORCE BEING PRESENTED IN THE FIRST THREE YEARS OF MARRIAGE.
FOLLOWING THE UNITED KINGDOM PRECEDENT FROM WHICH IT
WAS DERIVED, IT ONLY ALLOWED A PETITION TO BE PRESENTED DURING THIS PERIOD IN THE CASE OF EXCEPTIONAL HARDSHIP OR EXCEPTIONAL DEPRAVITY ON THE PART OF THE OTHER PARTNER, HE SAID.
THE ENGLISH