"Physically present" construed. Haw Supp, 3 HBJ, Fall 1965, at 20.

For discussion of development of new approach to family problems, see Divorce, Law and Psychology. 7 HBJ 73.

Averments as to jurisdiction held sufficiently set forth. 7 H. 342. Failure to allege that parties last lived together as husband and wife within said circuit may result in dismissal of suit for lack of jurisdiction. 9 H. 405. Suit cannot be brought in circuit other than that in which the parties last lived together. 19 H. 243 (but see section as amended). Decree where court has jurisdiction cannot be attacked collaterally. 23 H. 451, 455. Jurisdiction, custody of children. 49 H. 20, 29-31, 407 P.2d 885. Reference to a master: power of divorce judge; taking of evidence; review of master's fee. 44 H. 442, 355 P.2d 33.

Public cannot, but persons of immature years may, be excluded from courtroom. 22 H. 425, 428.

"Residence" equivalent to "domicile". 23 H. 376, 377; 37 H. 223; 38 H. 261; 41 H. 37. History of divorce courts discussed; not common law courts. 24 H. 239. Domicile of soldier or sailor. 35 H. 461; 37 H. 223. To acquire domicile. 40 H. 625. Domicile, evidence and continuation of. 54 H. 60, 502 P.2d 380.

The one-year residence requirement for divorce does not violate the equal protection clause. 53 H. 302, 492 P.2d 939. Durational residency requirement violate the equal protection clause. 360 F. Supp. 219. One-year residence requirement does not violate equal protection clause. 512 F.2d 430.

Appeal from interlocutory order requires allowance of court. 56 H. 662, 548 P.2d 251.

Though wife had not been domiciled in Hawaii for the continuous periods required under this section, as long as wife was domiciled in Hawaii at the time wife filed for divorce, i.e., wife was physically present in Hawaii with the intention of remaining indefinitely, family court had subject matter jurisdiction to entertain the divorce action; family court was then authorized to grant the divorce decree dissolving the marriage as long as wife was domiciled in Hawaii for a continuous period of six months prior to entry of the divorce decree. 94 H. 471 (App.), 16 P.3d 876.

Relevant statutes, rules, and precedent did not permit wife to directly attack in circuit court the validity of the property and distribution part of the divorce decree; circuit court did not have subject matter jurisdiction under §603-21.5 to do what wife must have had done to obtain the relief wife sought; pursuant to §580-47 and this section, only the family court could have granted that relief. 101 H. 370 (App.), 68 P.3d 644.

Cited: 3 H. 300, 301; 20 H. 633, 635; 24 H. 29, 34; 30 H. 620, 621.