Opinion - News Analysis   

Women celebrate, men sulk, over a ruling

Hasan Suroor

The British House of Lords has obliterated the traditional distinction between the home-maker and the breadwinner.

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.

Printer friendly page  
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Stories in this Section

For some decorous adversariality
High expectations and doubts
Arms control in a unipolar world
Energy conservation and house building
Corrections and clarifications
Speaking a common language
Left out — children with AIDS
Women celebrate, men sulk, over a ruling
Call off strike
Fallacious reasoning
Unfortunate

Copyright © 2006, The Hindu. Republication or redissemination of the contents of this screen are expressly prohibited without the written consent of The Hindu