Malta is the only member state of the European Union which has not introduced divorce law into its body of legislature and, with the Phillipines, is one of only two countries in the world which does not allow spouses to legally end a marriage

Married Maltese couples are able to legally separate – and there are rules and procedures for financial settlements and maintenance payments – but they are not allowed to marry any further partner as they remain formally joined to their original spouse.

However, all this could soon change, as the country is about to vote in a referendum on the subject.

Pro-family campaigners in the tiny country of just 400,000 residents have said it could cause a sudden surge in family break-ups and cause an “unhealthy” society, but, despite the population being 95% Catholic, the island nation is divided and the outcome is far from clear cut.

The ballot paper will pose the following question, “Do you agree with having the option of divorce for married couples who have been separated for four years when there is no reasonable hope for reconciliation, and when adequate maintenance is guaranteed and the children are cared for?”

The “No” vote is being championed by the Church and the conservative, Nationalist-run government, while the Labour Party remains relatively impartial.

“Yes” voters are said to be largely made up of young people and a major proportion of the island’s middle class residents who wish to see Malta brought into line with the rest of Europe and the world. The “Yes” vote is also being heavily promoted in the nation’s press.

For many, the decision has been too long in the making, as one 73-year old Maltese man told the Telegraph.

“I am being forced by the state to call the person with whom I was living 31 years ago my wife while the person I have lived with for 19 years is just my partner, ” he said.

“That is hypocritical and I just cannot accept that kind of hypocrisy.”

For many Maltese residents, an introduction of divorce law would mean they were able to finally marry a person they have lived with for many years, so, perhaps, any change to the legislature would have a knock-on effect of causing an upsurge in weddings rather than merely creating a market for divorces.

The most recent attack on the outdated state of English and Welsh family law has come from Sir Paul Coleridge, as reported in The Telegraph, who has called current divorce law a “dead parrot” in need of a “comprehensive root-and-branch overhaul”.

The comments were made by the High Court judge, who presides as Mr Justice Coleridge, during a speech made before a meeting organised by the Christian charity, Care, in London.

He said that current legislation affecting divorce and cohabiting couples was “no longer fit for purpose” and that government after government had failed to tackle the important issue of law in these areas.

Sir Paul expressed concern that a high-level enquiry had not been carried out in respect of divorce law reform since the 1950 Royal Commission and noted how different society is now.

He told the audience, “The world we inhabit today is not the same world as we inhabited in 1950. Socially, society is unrecognisable. The norms of behaviour, the stigmas and the taboos have all changed or evaporated.”

Adding, “We need a fresh look by an independent non-political commission.”

One area of family law which Sir Paul sees as ripe for reform is the rights of unmarried partners. He also suggested that pre-divorce information sessions for couples should be introduced as a precursor to visiting their divorce lawyers.

Sir Paul argued that even though the rate of family breakdown was increasing persistently politicians had not addressed the issue, thus leaving the courts to mete out their decisions whilst attempting to take into account the changes in society – a kind of law reform by “stealth”.

Some family law specialists have criticised a new iPhone app which offers legal advice on divorce law.

The app is described as giving “the first line of information to anyone considering divorce or separation and who wants to be better informed about the process”.

A London firm of family law solicitors has been involved in producing the app and it contains a warning that the text is not a substitute for consultation with a divorce lawyer if its users are seriously contemplating marriage break-up.

A spokesman said the purpose of Divorce? was to make people aware of the implications of divorce before starting on the formal stages of separation.

One ‘pro-family’ campaigner said the app could help persuade people to try to save their marriages if they realised the procedure of walking away from a relationship was not as simple as celebrities made it appear.

However, a representative of pro-marriage campaigners Christian Voice has attacked the app for possibly deterring people from seeking to save their relationship.

Stephen Green told The Guardian, ” It could encourage divorce by normalising the decision, making it seem as easy to make as any other lifestyle choice.”

Other commentators have said that the app, which has been available in a similar form in the United States for some time, is most likely to be used by the curious rather than those who are seriously in need of divorce legal advice from a family law specialist.