Court Opinion

ID: 9651576
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 16:27:39.055022+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:12:36.301588
License: Public Domain

Kenison, C. J.,
concurring specially: I concur in this opinion solely because the result is dictated by RSA 458:31 as construed in Eckstrom v. Eckstrom, 98 N. H. 177. However the result is unfortunate and points up to the Bar the desirability of legislative consideration and change in order to eliminate the wife’s domicile as a jurisdictional requirement in seeking separate maintenance in this state. Not only does the Eckstrom decision represent a distinct minority view (anno. 36 A. L. R. 2d 1369) but it is presently out of harmony with more recent statutes which allow marital support to be enforced without the requirement of domicile on the part of *26the wife. Uniform Reciprocal Enforcement of Support Act. RSA ch. 546 (supp), Laws 1959, c. 271; Uniform Civil Liability for Support Act, RSA ch. 546-A (supp), Laws 1955, c. 206; RSA 460:23 (supp), Laws 1959, c. 5; State v. Echavarria, 101 N. H. 458. New Hampshire will continue in part to be a jurisdictional haven for husbands avoiding marital support unless this requirement of the wife’s domicile is eliminated under RSA 458:31.
Blandin, J., joined in the concurring opinion.