The Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 still governs divorce in this country. At least it would if the judges obeyed and enforced it, which they don't.

A petitioner for divorce must show irretrievable breakdown of the marriage for one of five reasons; the most common of which is 'that the respondent has behaved in such a way that the petitioner cannot reasonably be expected to live with the respondent.' 

(Note an early warning sign of sloppiness.  This reason is commonly referred to - even in court and other official documents - as 'unreasonable behaviour'.  By implying an objective rather than subjective test, this is plainly not an accurate summary.  For example, an Inuit lifestyle, though perfectly reasonable, might prove unendurable for a woman previously used to being a Surrey housewife.) 

Section 1(3) of the Act states 'it shall be the duty of the court to enquire, so far as it reasonably can, into the facts alleged by the petitioner...'

Do the District Judges carry out this duty?  No, they don't.  They can't be bothered.

Virtually all divorces are undefended and go on the wholly-misnamed 'special' list.  The District Judges then proceed as if they were dealing with a settlement of a run-of-the-mill civil action; whereby neither side accepts any liabilility. 

This means there is, indeed, little point in contesting a divorce petition because no-one cares whether the allegations it contains are true.

This wholesale dereliction of duty by the District Judges is connived at all the way up to the Court of Appeal. The allegations in a 'sufficently proven' divorce petition are NOT treated as previous findings of fact for the purpose of any other civil litigation; and a respondent who has agreed to a divorce is NOT thereby estopped from subsequently denying the truth of the facts relied on by the court.  

In short, a family court dealing with divorce is a Mickey Mouse court, unrelated to other civil litigation.

There is a clue to this in the casual nature of the official guidance notes to petitioners: 'In most cases one or two sentences will do... If you have alleged unreasonable behaviour ... give details of particular incidents, including dates, but it should not be necessary to give more than about half a dozen of the more serious incidents, including the most recent.'  This is officialspeak for 'For goodness' sake don't take it too seriously, old chap.'

This wholesale abnegation by the judiciary epitomises the contempt in which our ruling elite hold the institution of marriage; which has been the bedrock of our traditional way of life.