Those who claimed a four-year lapse between marital breakdown and a request for divorce was not a must under the proposed law were out to mislead, the pro-divorce movement has said.

Reacting to comments made by two lawyers at an anti-divorce event last week, the Iva Movement said in a statement that the Bill was clear: four years of marital separation had to elapse before couples would be able to apply for a divorce decree.

“What is being proposed is a responsible type of divorce because it gives ample time for the spouses to get back together if they so wish before they become eligible to even apply for divorce.

“This is important in order to have moral certainty that the marriage has, in fact, irretrievably broken down. Those who try and plant doubts in people’s minds that the four-year period is not a must or that maintenance, care, custody and access to children are not dealt with in the law are out to mislead,” it said.

“Having a marriage contract that states that one is married when nothing that effectively constitutes marriage subsists is a ridiculous state of affairs,” the movement added.

Addressing a debate organised by the anti-divorce movement, lawyers Robert Tufigno and Kevin Dingli had spoken about a different interpretation that could be given to the divorce Bill. Dr Tufigno said the possibility of granting a divorce to a person responsible for a martial breakdown would spark off a culture that rewarded those who reneged on their commitments. He still acknowledged no-fault separation already existed.

In its reaction, the pro-divorce movement said that if the anti-divorce lobby looked at divorce and remarriage as a reward “it must necessarily look at the lack of divorce and inability to remarry as a punishment”.

“This means that if things remain as they are, spouses who are not at fault for the breakdown of their marriages will be victims twice over,” it said.