PAULINE WHITE Vs. SWWHITE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application on behalf of the petitioner in a suit for judicial separation who had obtained an order for alimony pendente lite. The application is made on behalf of the petitioner for an order that the respondent should carry out the terms of an order made by Gregory, J., dated 7 April 1927 whereby he was ordered to pay certain sums to the petitioner by way of alimony pendente lite, and the application further asks that in default of compliance with the order to pay the respondent be committed to jail as for a contempt of Court.

(2.) On the previous occasion when the matter came up before me, by consent of counsel for the respective parties it was agreed that the order made by Gregory, J., should be varied and that in future the respondent should pay to the petitioner's solicitors the sum of Rs. 400 or rather the equivalent of it in English money, that is to say, ?30, by delivering to them a cheque upon an English bank on the 7 of each month. That agreement will be embodied in an order of this Court. The question then remains as to whether or not any order should be made with regard to the costs of the proceedings. It is said on behalf of the respondent that the procedure adopted for the enforcement of the order of Gregory, J., will not lie and in fact it is incompetent for the Court 8to enforce an order of this character as for contempt.

(3.) It was very ably argued by Mr. Barwell that proceedings by way of contempt will still lie in this country for the enforcement of an order of this kind, and he bases his argument upon this footing that in England until the passing of the Debtor's Act in the year 1869 it was the practice to enforce orders for the payment of alimony pendente lite by means of proceeding in contempt, and that it was only by reason of Section 4. Debtors Act, that such procedure was abolished.