CHAP. 1X] DIVORCE AND STATUS 1241
case of adultery by his wife ; by s. 13 any husband who has
been domiciled in New South Wales for three years can
obtain divorce on certain grounds similar to those mentioned
in the case of the Victorian Act of 1889. In this case the
distinction might be between any husband domiciled and
any husband domiciled for three years, though there is
reason to think, and the head-notes to the sections adopt the
view, that the term ‘ any husband ’ is meant to cover any
and every case. But the reading of ss. 14-16 is decisive ;
for the distinction there is between any wife, and any wife
whose husband is domiciled in New South Wales, and any
wife domiciled in the Colony at the institution of the suit
for three years, always provided that she did not resort
thither to obtain a divorce. It is also provided that no wife
who was domiciled in the Colony when the desertion com-
menced shall be deemed to have lost her domicile by reason
of her husband having obtained a foreign domicile since he
deserted her. In the case of New Zealand divorce jurisdiction
is given in case of domicile for two years, with the usual
saving of a married woman whose domicile is changed by her
husband’s action after desertion, but in addition any wife may
claim under s. 23 of the Act No. 18 of 1904 on certain grounds,
and it is again doubtful whether the term is to mean any
wife domiciled, or any wife whatever. Another provision
in that Act may be mentioned as having in effect introduced
divorce by consent into New Zealand ; the law, as amended
in 1898, allowed the failure to obey an order for the restitu-
tion of conjugal rights to serve as the basis of a divorce
for desertion ; accordingly, by collusion two parties could
bring about the granting of a suit for restitution, and they
then could proceed to petition on the grounds of desertion ;
this led in 1907 to the passing of an amending Act (No. 78) to
remove the difficulty, which was felt to be very undesirable.!
[n Papua an Ordinance of 1910 regulates divorce ; it follows
the lines of the Imperial Act of 1857, and it would no doubt
* See New Zealand Parliamentary Debates, 1907, cxlii. 845 seq., 926 seq.,
968 seq. The same abuse is possible under New South Wales Act No. 14
of 1899, s, 11.
