On Divorce by Mutual Consent
16 January 2022 10:08 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
igenlodeOne more quirk of the Napoleonic legal system (in addition to the business of needing the father's permission to marry if you were under the age of twenty-five): couples could not be divorced 'by mutual consent' if the husband was under the age of twenty-five -- or if they had been married for less than two years.
So if Raoul wanted to divorce his wife and remarry to Christine, he would have to have brought his concubine into their common residence first, and get Hertha to divorce him, because otherwise they are deemed too young to know their own minds. (Not a completely unreasonable legal attitude, although an unexpected one!)
And the 'concubine' in question couldn't be Christine herself, because the guilty party is not permitted to marry his accomplice subsequent to the divorce. The rationale for not permitting a wife to remarry until ten months have elapsed is clearly to confirm the paternity of any child of which she may be delivered. Other interesting elements are that you cannot divorce a woman over forty-five (so no getting rid of your wife for a younger model!) or after the marriage has lasted over twenty years, at which point you are presumably deemed to have created an established partnership no matter how much you may quarrel in the process.
Interestingly, although "the provisional management of the children shall rest with the husband" (as you would anticipate), after the separation takes effect the children are then entrusted to the innocent party, even if this is the wife.
It's just as well from my point of view that they aren't actually going to get divorced, even if Hertha is busy bracing herself for the likelihood...
So if Raoul wanted to divorce his wife and remarry to Christine, he would have to have brought his concubine into their common residence first, and get Hertha to divorce him, because otherwise they are deemed too young to know their own minds. (Not a completely unreasonable legal attitude, although an unexpected one!)
And the 'concubine' in question couldn't be Christine herself, because the guilty party is not permitted to marry his accomplice subsequent to the divorce. The rationale for not permitting a wife to remarry until ten months have elapsed is clearly to confirm the paternity of any child of which she may be delivered. Other interesting elements are that you cannot divorce a woman over forty-five (so no getting rid of your wife for a younger model!) or after the marriage has lasted over twenty years, at which point you are presumably deemed to have created an established partnership no matter how much you may quarrel in the process.
Interestingly, although "the provisional management of the children shall rest with the husband" (as you would anticipate), after the separation takes effect the children are then entrusted to the innocent party, even if this is the wife.
It's just as well from my point of view that they aren't actually going to get divorced, even if Hertha is busy bracing herself for the likelihood...
no subject
Date: 2022-01-17 02:12 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2022-01-17 02:14 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2022-01-20 01:47 pm (UTC)