HOW easy should it be to get a divorce? I ask this not because I’m seeking one – I’m not married – but because this often thorny issue raised its head earlier this week when Tini Owens, a 65-year-old from Worcestershire, went to the Court of Appeal pleading to be freed from her “loveless” and “unhappy” marriage to her 78-year-old husband of 39 years, Hugh.

The case ended up in the appeal court after a judge refused to grant Mrs Owens a divorce. According to the judge she had failed to establish that her husband’s behaviour – which apparently included silence during mealtimes and “stinging” remarks in front of friends - was unreasonable; in fact, the judge remarked, such actions were simply part of normal married life. And since Mr Owens had refused a “no fault” divorce, which can be achieved after a year if both parties agree, under English law his wife now has to wait five years. In effect, she is locked into the marriage.

The details caused quite a hoo-ha in the papers and on social media, with a particular spotlight on their obvious wealth, what constitutes "unreasonable behaviour" (I can think of various couples where one of the partners staying silent during mealtimes would be a blessing, quite frankly) and the judge's actions - he was criticised by some for not simply granting the divorce. Legal minds in Scotland, however, raised eyebrows at another aspect of the case: how England continues to lag behind Scotland in terms of allowing timely and fair solutions to this very emotional area of the law.

Quite simply, Mrs Owens’ plight would not have arisen in Scotland. With her husband refusing a quickie “no fault” divorce, in Scotland she would have to wait a maximum of two years for the marriage to be formally dissolved.

“The law in Scotland was changed in May 2006 reducing the period of consent from two years to one, and non-consent from five years to two,” Tom Quail, a family law expert at Wright Johnston and Mackenzie LLP in Glasgow. “I believe in England there have been calls for the law there to follow, and it is cases like this one which highlight the reasons why.

“As it stands Mrs Owens could have to wait a very long time to resolve this matter.”

In reality, the reduced time factor in Scotland means there is often little point in contesting a divorce, meaning a smoother – less costly - path for all involved.

Although every divorce is undoubtedly distressing, particularly when one party does not want to break up the marriage, and especially when there are children involved, one can’t help but feel that in modern times someone saying they want out, that they have thought long and hard about the matter and come to the conclusion that the relationship is definitely over, should really be enough. At that stage it’s surely best for all concerned to resolve the financial and family details and responsibilities as best they can and try to move on with their lives. Anything else is surely only prolonging the agony. This is particularly true in the 21st century, when so many different types of family, encompassing step parents and children, gay marriage, female breadwinners and stay-at-home dads, are now common and widely accepted.

With this in mind it’s rather heartening to know that Scotland’s family law appears to be a flexible beast that subscribes to this pragmatic way of thinking.

“In Scotland there are few who would say our divorce laws cause obstacles or problems,” family law specialist Anne Hall Dick, a partner at Glasgow-based Family Law Matters Scotland, told me. “If a marriage really is over, then a divorce, though a big step in someone’s life, is not normally a legally complicated one.

“Scotland has a good, joined-up way of dealing with this that allows matters to be dealt with in a way that does no longer causes extra friction.

“The change in the law in 2006 has helped many people and kept Scotland up to date in terms of how we live now - that’s also the change that brought in co-habitation rights. It keeps the law fit for purpose and has kept pace with the more diverse way in which people live their lives these days.”

That wasn’t always the case, of course. Until the Reformation in Scotland in 1560, divorce was practically unheard of. Indeed until only a generation ago the effort and expense it took to obtain a divorce, and, of course the continued influence of church law, which frowned upon, indeed often ostricised divorcees and people who left their spouse, meant many couples avoided formal dissolution of their marriage in the courts.

Women were all too often the losers in either situation, of course: doomed to stay in unhappy, cruel, sometimes violent marriages, stigmatised and without the means to support themselves financially if they left.

The modern law in this area, which included divorce by mutual consent, was written in 1976, with the finance aspect updated in 1985, allowing for fairer, more equal financial settlements and recognising the contribution of both partners to a marriage, even if only one of them worked. The 2006 change in the law recognised that divorce was taking too long in modern, overwhelmingly secular society – that people should be able to move on more quickly with their lives when relationships breaks down.

Indeed, Ms Hall Dick makes the point that Mrs Owens’ case also highlights another step change in modern life – the fact that more older people are seeking to get divorced.

“In Scotland as elsewhere divorce rates are not rising but there are more ‘silver’ divorces than ever before.

“Even a generation ago women were brought up to be more dependent on men and there was more focus on staying in marriages and the time factor is just an extra obstacle in many ways.

“It would be a shame if women in England were reading about this case and feeling extra trapped by the five-year issue. In the case of older people, these extra years are surely even more precious.”

Meantime, Mrs Owens may wish to consider an alternative solution: buying a property in Scotland, living in it for a year to establish jurisdiction and seeking her divorce here. We can only hope she and her husband find a resolution to their dispute soon – after all, the only people gaining at the moment are the lawyers.