legislative provisions, including (in cases where it still remains part of the law) the concept of domicile of dependency of endment, it is clear that the whole trend of American law is towards abandoning the concept of a married woman’s domicile of dependency. The obligation of support has historically rested upon the husband and has been widely relied on to justify the concept of domicile of dependency (since, if the husband is responsible for support, selection by him of the place where the family should live has been regarded as a necessary aspect of the discharge of that obligation). However, in recent years, maintenance obligations have been placed on a more equal basis between the sexes, so that the principal rationale for the concept of dependent domicile has been swept aside. Moreover, the idea that there must be a “head of the household” has given way to the notion of joint responsibility for ily. Another factor worthy of note is that the emphasis on matrimonial fault has generally been greatly reduced in divorce law in the United States. The retention of some of the exceptions mentioned supra in regard to the domicile of dependency, which were premised on the notion of matrimonial fault, would clearly be out of harmony with this development.

(3) Canada

The new domicile regarding dependence regarding hitched women don’t is applicable in value out-of divorce legislation, where partnered female has a different domicile. Regulations in a few provinces (and Ontario and Prince Edward Isle) has provided one partnered lady need to have a separate domicile into the all the cases.

(4) Australian continent

The general rule in Australia is that the principle of domicile of dependency prevails. For the purposes of matrimonial jurisdiction, however, married women now have an independent domicile by virtue of section 4(3) of the Friends Law Operate 1975, which provides that “[i]n ascertaining the domicile of a party to a marriage for the purpose of this Act . the domicile of a woman who is, or has at any time been, married shall be determined as if she had never been married”. There is some uncertainty as to the precise scope of this limitation. One commentator has argued that, whilst a strict interpretation would apply the change in the law only to the notion of domicile whenever that occurs in the Act itself, the words should be given a wider meaning “as applying . whenever it is necessary to ascertain a person’s domicile for the purposes of exercising jurisdiction under the Act” 25 .

(5) The brand new Zealand

Legislation in New Zealand has conferred an independent domicile on married women. thaifriendly VyhledГЎvГЎnГ­ The Domicile Act 1976 26 contains a number of very useful reforms of the law relating to domicile. Section 5, which provides for the independent domicile of the wife, is drafted in a more simple style than its British counterpart (s.2 of the Domicile and you will Matrimonial Legal proceeding Work 1973).

First and foremost, the policy of subjecting the domicile of a wife to that of her husband involves social and cultural assumptions that are at variance with contemporary standards.

Next, the concept of unity of domicile is an artificial one, which may bear no relation to the actual circumstances of the spouses. By virtue of the operation of the concept, a wife may be domiciled in a country with which she has no real connexion.

Thirdly, the concept of unity of domicile may work hardship in some cases and may easily be abused in others. A husband might avail himself of the concept in order to acquire property or other rights in circumstances where his wife would not be able to do so; conversely, a wife might avail herself of her artificial domicile in order to assert property or other rights in a country with which she has no real connexion.