Sir, – Objection from politicians to the Tories’ £150-a-year marriage tax break has typically referred to penalising abandoned women while helping their remarried ex-husbands. That old chestnut!

Let’s be clear. While women consistently file 70 per cent of divorce petitions year-on-year, it doesn’t mean they comprise 70 per cent of the victims of domestic strife. It means women are more likely to give up on marriage. Why?

Well one reason is that a woman can file to divorce her husband for behaviour as trivial as whistling in the bath. Unable to deny it, the husband cannot successfully contest the divorce unless the wife’s behaviour was very serious – attempted murder for instance. So, the divorce process will confirm her entitlement to a divorce on the grounds that: “the marriage has irretrievably broken down, the facts found proved being the Respondent’s unreasonable behaviour”.

Being usually less financially secure than her husband, the wife will then receive a financial payout from the husband.

Able to use divorce law to make a lifestyle choice not just a “life saving” choice, the wife has little disincentive to divorce. So, is current divorce law compatible with the Conservative’s position that the family/marriage is the bedrock of society, deserving greater commitment – presumably by both couples and government?

1. For what sound principles has needs-based divorce on demand become public policy?

2. Is it unreasonable for the law to accept a subjective assessment of “unreasonable behaviour”

while requiring an objective assessment of opposing behaviour allegations, which can lead to a husband being divorced for behaviour objectively much less serious than that of his wife towards him?

3. Can divorce law continue to trivialise marriage by endorsing “irretrievable” marriage breakdown for simple human failings, when the cure is almost certainly far more harmful to society than the disease?

4. Wouldn’t a political commitment to marriage and the family be demonstrated more clearly by: a) taking into account the commitment to the marriage shown by the contesting spouses when determining the financial settlement; b) investing public funds in realistic attempts to save marriages, rather than endeavouring to conserve public funds through “quickie” needs-based divorce on demand?

I’ve put those questions to each Thirsk and Malton constituency candidate – and to their parties’ respective family and justice spokesmen. I’m waiting for replies.

DAVID ROTHWELL Drovers Way, Thirsk