Section 10A — Matrimonial Causes Act 1973: Proceedings before divorce order has been made final : religious marriage
Text of the provision Official document
Proceedings before divorce order has been made final : religious marriage 10A 1 This section applies if a divorce order has been made but not made final and the parties to the marriage concerned—
a were married in accordance with—
i the usages of the Jews, or ii any other prescribed religious usages;
and b must co-operate if the marriage is to be dissolved in accordance with those usages.
2 On the application of either party, the court may order that a divorce order is not to be made final until a declaration made by both parties that they have taken such steps as are required to dissolve the marriage in accordance with those usages is produced to the court.
3 An order under subsection (2)—
a may be made only if the court is satisfied that in all the circumstances of the case it is just and reasonable to do so;
and b may be revoked at any time.
4 A declaration of a kind mentioned in subsection (2)—
a must be in a specified form;
b must, in specified cases, be accompanied by such documents as may be specified;
and c must, in specified cases, satisfy such other requirements as may be specified.
5 The validity of a divorce order made by reference to such a declaration is not to be affected by any inaccuracy in that declaration. 6 “ Prescribed ” means prescribed in an order made by the Lord Chancellor after consulting the Lord Chief Justice and such an order—
a must be made by statutory instrument;
b shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament. 7 “ Specified ” means specified in rules of court.
8 The Lord Chief Justice may nominate a judicial office holder (as defined in section 109(4) of the Constitutional Reform Act 2005) to exercise his functions under this section.
Official source: legislation.gov.uk
Search case law on this topic
See judgments from UK courts and tribunals with a plain-English summary and legal holding.
Explore case law →