TONY PALMER
On 1 January the new divorce law came into effect. It abandons the old legal concept of one person' and one person alone being the guilty party responsible 'for the break- down of a marriage. Apparently it will be easier and less destructive to obtain a divorce —much more a matter of mutual consent than of proving the rights or wrongs of a particular case. Even SO, it's probably as well to remember that you might well need your loved one just when you shouldn't, if you see what I mean. For example, I know a man who thought it would be very easy to provide evidence of adultery sd that his wife could divorce him because that was the gentlemanly thing to do, provide the evid- ence, that is. But could he persuade anyone to join him for the night, for part of the night, even for those last five minutes before the private detective comes bursting through the bedroom door at a prearranged signal, a prearranged look of surprise and at a prearranged price? Even the well known call-girl network proved to be so well known that no one knew of anyone. Eventually, in despair, he telephoned his wife to tell her of his dilemma. To his astonishment she offered to help. How would it be, she offered, if she herself came and spent the night with him so that when the private detective came bursting in at his prearranged signal, he would discover the husband in bed with the said other woman. Obviously she would have to wear a wig and he would have to promise to wear his pyjamas. Other- wise it wouldn't be fair. What could the man say? He was not someone to bear a grudge. I mean, his wife may have run off with a dis- ' peptic cripple in a wheel chair and been bullying him for years to give her a divorce so that she could marry meals on wheels, but who was he to complain when faced with such a predicament? The private detective had already received a down payment and was expecting to find him in bed with a lady in night attire. So what did it matter if that lady was his wife? Perversion of the course of justice it might have been, but perversion of the laws of marriage it was not. He agreed to this heavy dosage of espionage and a time and a place were fixed.
Of course, the night didn't go off quite as expected. She was late but then she was always late so his irritation was nothing new. He knew the symptoms and could see it coming at least three large whiskies before it came. But when it came, wow, was he angry. The silly, screw faced little bitch. Why the heck was she late, tonight of all nights? Had she no sense of decency, of honesty, of loyalty? What was the point of getting divorced if you couldn't do it properly? It wasn't as if he was asking her to do anything special. After all, he argued with himself, any wife would have done as much, That is, except my wife, who is guaranteed to balls up any arrangement. He couldn't think why he had married her in the first place. At last the lady arrived. She could see that he was
drunk, what she called drunk, that is, which meant that he smelled of drink. And if only he didn't wear those Hawaiian sports shirts. They were so undignified. She wished him to know that her present action in no way condoned his previous unfaithfulness to her. every last detail of which she intended to spell out 'to the judge. He suggested a drink but she declined saying that she should get herself ready for their little adventure and would he mind turning the other way while she undressed. Would he what ?No he sup- posed not, if she insisted. But it all seemed ? bit unnecessary. After all, she was his wife.
A little later the two of them climbed into bed. She really did look ridiculous in that flaming red wig, curls and all and as for wearing underwear under her nightie, that was stretching it a bit much—in the nicest possible way, that is. Inevitably, the con- versation turned to happier times when they had only quarrelled twice a day and the absurdity of their present situation became apparent. They laughed and for all the world you would have thought them a contented couple. There were those sentimental memories and little private jokes which amused only them. It was so nice to be back together. After all this time. Nothing had changed much. Was it really necessary, all this divorcing thing? They kissed and wandered off into dreams.
Morning came with the loudest of knocks. At a prearranged signal, the private detective burst in—well, actually, he knocked—only to discover, yes—well, actually, he was rather sad and asked them for their names and addresses and he hoped he hadn't disturbed anybody and yes he would like a cup of tea because really the job was so tiring and this was the fourth couple he'd had to visit that morning and two lumps please and yes he was very happily married although his son had been killed in the war and thank you for the tea. What would happen, asked the girl, I mean, have you ever had a case of a man and his, well what would you say if I told you that I wasn't really a . . . The husband was staring out of the window. Yes, he loved his wife. it wasn't just habit or affection or convenience. There was some- thing quite deep which held them together. And if she wanted to tell the private detec- tive that it was all a great mistake, and she was very sorry that he, the detective, had been troubled, well, he'd go along with it. What did divorce really solve anyway? Wasn't it just running away from problems that would only recur in some later dis- guise in some later relationship?
At the last moment, she lacked the courage to speak out. They parted and were divorced some months later. My wife told me this story. She said it was the plot from a play she'd written, but I could see from the way she told me that it had really happened. I've wondered whether such bizarre events could occur under the new divorce laws. Or whether such laws are just the last attempt to regularise the already discredited institu- tion of marriage. I've always thought that the new young with their proclaimed sexual emancipation would have scorned the very idea of marriage. After all, the underground is always telling us that monogamous sex is an outmoded concept. Interestingly, it is the young and their obsessions about and in- consistencies within marriage that have made these new laws imperative, for it re- mains a fact that during the next twelve months the largest proportion of people seeking divorce will be under twenty-five. Still, every 1 January brings with it a crop of New Year's Resolutions. Or marriages.
Previous page
