85% of recent divorces uncontested – Manickchand quells fears about updated law

The Matrimonial Causes (Amendment) Bill was recently passed in the National Assembly.
Under the previous legislation, couples seeking divorce faced the arduous task of proving fault, which often led to bitter proceedings, unnecessary animosity, and prolonged legal battles.
The requirement to assign blame often exacerbated already strained relationships, making it difficult for parties to move forward amicably, especially when children were involved.
The new legislation, which was passed in the National Assembly on July 31, removes the requirement to establish fault when seeking divorces.
This change not only streamlines the divorce process but also promotes a more compassionate approach to separation, recognising that marriages can irretrievably breakdown for a multitude of reasons. Despite the progressive nature of the law, there are critics claiming that it can undermine the sanctity of marriage or could lead to an increase in divorces.

Education Minister, Priya Manickchand, a lawyer by profession

However, Education Minister, Priya Manickchand – a lawyer by profession – explained that this is not true.
In a social media broadcast on Sunday, she revealed that 85 per cent of divorces in the last five years were uncontested.
“The majority of people already agree…that this marriage is over and they want a divorce but we force them to say horrible and unkind things about each other. Now, they can go get that divorce without saying those things,” Manickchand explained.
In this regard, she dispelled concerns from the public that this new law will encourage more people to unnecessarily get divorced.
“People here tend to fight for their marriages, stay long past the due date…put up with a lot of abuse and insults and hardships in an effort to save the marriage. Nobody runs off and gets a divorce because they can,” she explained.
“And I don’t see that happening. I think it’s a misplaced fear, I understand where the fear is coming from, but it’s a misplaced fear,” she added.
Key provisions of the Matrimonial Causes (Amendment) Bill include enhanced measures for the equitable division of matrimonial property, more comprehensive guidelines for spousal maintenance, and updated procedures for the dissolution of marriages. The bill also aims to streamline the legal process for addressing marital disputes and improving the support systems available to families undergoing separation.
Attorney-General and Legal Affairs Minister, Anil Nandlall, had told the National Assembly that the amendments are expected to significantly influence future divorce proceedings in Guyana, promoting a fair approach to post-marital financial support.
“The bill also amplifies the grounds that a court must take into account when examining the issue of maintenance and when to grant maintenance when treating alimony. So, the bill as I said in that overview has some very wide-ranging changes with deep and far-reaching ramifications,” he added.
Nandlall added that the newly amended divorce law will allow couples to agree on divorce terms without publicly airing their disputes.
“They are a series of provisions in the principal act that confer protection upon a wife but does not reciprocally confer such protection on the husband. So, in those provisions we have brought equality and equilibrium,” Nandlall said.
This legislative revision follows a pivotal ruling by Chief Justice (AG) Roxane George-Wiltshire, who recently deemed Section 14 of the Matrimonial Causes Act, Chapter 45:02 discriminatory based on sex and gender, as it exclusively permitted wives to obtain maintenance post-divorce. The case emerged when a divorced man contested the prevailing legal structure after being barred from seeking maintenance from his ex-wife.
The Chief Justice highlighted at the time that the current stipulations of the Matrimonial Causes Act unjustly discriminated against men, contravening constitutional mandates against sex and gender-based discrimination.
In response, the Attorney General, who was a respondent in the case, acknowledged the act’s inconsistency with Article 149 of the Constitution, which safeguards against discrimination on various grounds, including sex and gender.