A man who was in an arranged marriage that was never consummated has had his application to appeal assault charges against him by his wife turned down by the court.
The couple shared a miserable and unsuccessful marriage, and in 2009 the man was found guilty of assaulting the woman, who got a protection order against him last year.
The man applied for an extension of time to file an appeal against the protection of order, citing several causes for the delay. But this has been turned down by the Court of Appeal and he has also been ordered by the court to pay costs to the woman.
The couple, who have name suppression, had an arranged marriage in 2009.
The woman came to New Zealand from India with her mother and following the marriage, they both lived with her new husband and his family in Hamilton for some time, said the court report.
However, the marriage was never consummated and Judge Brown described it as a "cause of misery for both parties'', it said.
The woman alleged he assaulted her three different times in September and October 2009. He denied each allegation.
In December 2009 she went to Women's Refuge and applied for a protection order against him.
Following a hearing Judge Brown found all three assaults were proved and rejected man's denial and evidence from his mother, he found to be found "lacking in credibility and reliability'', said the report.
The judge also granted the protection order.
The husband appealed the decision, saying his mother's evidence was not understood by the judge because she was not proficient in English or Hindi - the language used by the interpreter in court.
At a High Court hearing the judge's findings were found to be credible and the interpreter issue had not tainted the entire proceeding, its decision said.
The protection order in place was also found necessary.
The man wanted to challenge the decision but the time for filing an appeal expired in April and his application was not made until five months later.
He said the delay was due to " an inability to think straight after the injustice which has happened'', the death of his grandfather in June and service of a bankruptcy notice on his wife's behalf for unpaid costs relating to the dissolution of marriage.
However, these did not adequately explain the delay, the Court of Appeal found.
"We are not satisfied that the prospective merits of [the husband's] proposed appeal justify granting an extension of time; and nor are we satisfied that it raises any question of law,'' its decision said.
