A man who says he was deserted by his wife yesterday lost a Supreme Court bid to be entitled to the same social welfare benefits as deserted wives.
The court held there were ample grounds to conclude that deserted wives were in general likely to have greater needs than deserted husbands.
In proceedings against the State, Mr Anthony Lowth (54), Foster Terrace, Ballybough, Dublin, and his two children, claimed provisions of the Social Welfare Act 1981 were unconstitutional.
In December 1993, the High Court turned down Mr Lowth's claim and he appealed that decision to the Supreme Court. Delivering the judgment of the five-judge court, the Chief Justice, Mr Justice Hamilton, said the only issue for decision was a constitutional one.
Mr Lowth was married in 1979. There were two children, Angela, now aged 17, and Mark, now aged 16. He had submitted that in March 1984 he and his children were deserted by his wife. At that time, he worked with a building firm and had no one to help him rear his children. He was eventually forced to give up work so that he could look after them. When they got older and developed to where they did not require his full-time attention, he tried to get employment but failed.
Since he gave up his employment, he has been dependent firstly on unemployment benefit and later unemployment assistance, augmented by social assistance.
In his High Court decision, Mr Justice Costello said the Oireachtas took a view that married women in Irish society fulfilled a different function to a married man and required greater help.
The High Court refused to grant Mr Lowth a number of orders, including a declaration that the failure of the Minister to treat him in a similar manner to a deserted wife similarly situated amounts to a breach of his rights under Article 40 (1) of the Constitution.
Yesterday, the Chief Justice said the facts proved before the High Court showed clearly how women in employment at the material times were at a financial disadvantage in comparison to men. Statistics adduced in evidence established the relatively small proportion of married women in the workforce. Moreover, the provisions of the Constitution dealing with the family recognised a social and domestic order in which married women were unlikely to work outside the family home. The Married Women's Property Acts, 1882-1893, which limited the rights of a married woman to deal with her own property, were not repealed until the Married Women's Status Act 1957.
An even more obvious impediment to the married woman engaging in business was the Civil Service Regulation Act 1956 which required women civil servants to retire from the service on marriage. That ban was not repealed until 1973 at about the same time as a comparable restriction on married women working in banks was lifted.
The Chief Justice said those realities confirmed and enlivened the picture provided by statistics given in evidence by the defendants. It was no function of the court to adjudicate upon the merits or otherwise of the impugned legislation. It was only necessary to conclude, as the court had done, that there were ample grounds for the Oireachtas concluding that deserted wives were in general likely to have greater needs than deserted husbands so as to justify legislation providing for social welfare, whether in the form of benefits or grants or a combination of both, to meet such needs.
The claim by Mr Lowth was presented and contested on the narrow grounds that there was no economic justification for differentiating between deserted husbands and deserted wives, the Chief Justice said.
In confining the judgment to that issue, it was not to be inferred that the court had expressly or by implication accepted that other obstacles to the plaintiffs' claim would have been resolved in their favour.
Costs of the case were awarded against Mr Lowth.