[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	England and Wales Family Court Decisions (High Court Judges)
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales Family Court Decisions (High Court Judges) >> Solovyev v Solovyev [2014] EWFC 20 (09 June 2014) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWFC/HCJ/2014/20.html Cite as: [2014] EWFC 20

[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]

IN THE FAMILY COURT
(In Open Court)

		Royal Courts of Justice
		9th June 2014

THE PRESIDENT:

1. I have before me a petition for divorce issued as long ago as 23 July 2013. Both the petitioner husband and the respondent wife are citizens of the Russian Federation, where they were married on 21 September 2002. By April 2008 they had come to live in this country, where they were both habitually resident on the date when the petition was issued. Accordingly the court has jurisdiction as asserted in the petition in accordance with the provisions of Article 3(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 commonly known as Brussels II Revised.
2. The application for divorce is on the ground that the marriage has broken down irretrievably, and the petitioner's allegation is that the respondent has behaved in such a way that he cannot reasonably be expected to live with her. The facts in support of that allegation are set out in the petition but need not be rehearsed. The matters alleged, if true, plainly amount to unreasonable behaviour.
3. The delay in the petition coming before the court was generated by the fact that the petitioner and the respondent obtained a divorce on 30 April 2012 at the Russian Consulate in London which is undoubtedly valid according to the law of the Russian Federation. If that divorce is recognised in this country then there is, of course, no need for the petitioner to pursue his petition. The issue of the recognition in this country of that Russian divorce came before me, and on 15 May 2014 I handed down a judgment explaining why in accordance with English law that divorce, although undoubtedly valid in accordance with the law of the Russian Federation, was not entitled to recognition in this country: Solovyev v Solovyeva [2014] EWFC 1546. Hence it became necessary for the petitioner to reactivate his petition for divorce.
4. The respondent wife has never served an acknowledgement of service. However the solicitors who acted for her in the previous proceedings before me, and who still act for her, have confirmed in writing to the court that the petition has been received by the respondent, that she wishes to play no part in the proceedings, and that she has no objection to the petitioner proceeding on an unopposed basis and to the decree being expedited.
5. The petitioner filed a statement in support of divorce confirming that the facts and matters set out in the petition are true, and that he did not wish to alter or to add to anything in the petition. He has confirmed in front of me on oath the correctness of the statements set out in those documents. He has also confirmed on oath that the document and English translation before the court is a true copy of the original marriage certificate in Russia, and in particular that it correctly sets out his name, the name of his wife and the date and place of the marriage.
6. In these circumstances the petitioner is entitled to the decree of divorce which he seeks. I accordingly hereby pronounce a decree nisi of divorce.
7. The petitioner, without opposition from his wife as will be appreciated from what I have already said, seeks abridgement of the time for that decree nisi to be made absolute. The reasons for that desire are apparent from my previous judgment. In short, his fiancée cannot obtain entry to this country so long as he remains married in the eyes of English law to his wife. He, for understandable reasons, is anxious, as indeed his fiancée is, that the period of enforced separation between them should be brought to an end as soon as possible. In my judgment it is entirely appropriate in the unusual circumstances of this case that the time for making the decree absolute should be abridged. Accordingly I direct that the decree nisi can be made absolute on Wednesday of this week, that is, Wednesday 11 June 2014.
8. I think in the circumstances it is appropriate that I should direct that a transcript of the judgment I have just given be prepared at public expense.
__________