Image copyright PA Image caption Tini Owens has been refused a divorce by the family court and Court of Appeal 
 
 A woman who wants to divorce her husband on the grounds she is unhappy has lost her Supreme Court appeal. 
 
 Tini Owens, 68, from Worcestershire, wanted the court to grant her a divorce from her husband of 40 years Hugh, who is refusing the split. 
 
 The Supreme Court unanimously rejected the appeal, meaning she must remain married until 2020. 
 
 Mrs Owens' solicitor said she was "devastated" by the decision and "cannot move forward with her life". 
 
 Under the current law in England and Wales, unless people can prove their marriage has broken down due to adultery, unreasonable behaviour or desertion, the only way to obtain a divorce without a spouse's consent is to live apart for five years. 
 
 Following the ruling, the Ministry of Justice said: "The current system of divorce creates unnecessary antagonism in an already difficult situation. 
 
 "We are already looking closely at possible reforms to the system." 
 
 The couple were married in 1978 and have two adult children. 
 
 Mrs Owens said she had been contemplating a divorce since 2012, but did not leave the matrimonial home until February 2015. 
 
 Image copyright PA Image caption Hugh Owens has refused to agree to a divorce 
 
 She alleged the marriage had broken down irretrievably and Mr Owens had behaved in such a way that she could not reasonably be expected to live with him. 
 
 Mr Owens, 80, has refused to agree to a divorce and denied Mrs Owens' allegations about his behaviour. 
 
 He said if their marriage had irretrievably broken down it was because she'd had an affair, or because she was "bored". 
 
 Supreme Court justices analysed rival legal arguments, which revolved around concepts of "unreasonable" behaviour and "fault", at a hearing in May and delivered a ruling on Wednesday. 
 
 One, Lord Wilson, said justices had ruled against Mrs Owens "with reluctance" and it was a case for Parliament. 
 
 A statement made by Mr Owens' solicitors said he should not be "unfairly criticised for attempting to save his marriage". 
 
 "Hugh Owens takes no pleasure from this process which has impacted on the private family life of him and his wife," the statement said. 
 
 Simon Beccle, Mrs Owens' solicitor, said she had hoped the justices would make a decision which would be "forward-thinking and fit with the current social mores". 
 
 Supreme Court president Lady Hale said she found the case "very troubling" but it was not for judges to "change the law". 
 
 The original judge who heard the case found the marriage had broken down, but that Mrs Owens' examples were "flimsy and exaggerated". 
 
 Image copyright SWNS Image caption The pair have been living separately since 2015, Mrs Owens in Hill Farm House (left) and Mr Owens in Manor House (right) 
 
 The case has sparked a debate about whether divorce laws in England and Wales need to change. 
 
 Caroline Elliott, a partner at law firm Shakespeare Martineau, said: "England and Wales currently lag far behind other countries with their divorce laws and there is a strong mood for reform, which includes the introduction of 'no-fault' divorces." 
 
 Analysis by BBC legal correspondent Clive Coleman 
 
 Rarely in the field of Supreme Court judgements has a ruling been given with such misgivings by so many. 
 
 Lady Hale, the court's president, called it "a very troubling case". Lord Wilson and Lord Mance shared "uneasy feelings". 
 
 Why? Because there is deep disquiet about a law that forces spouses to assign blame in order to get their divorce. 
 
 Many believe blame only exacerbates the problems and conflicts inherent in what is already a difficult and stressful process. 
 
 There have been calls for a move to a "no-fault" system for decades, like those that exist in the US, Australia and Scotland. 
 
 A private members' bill has been introduced into Parliament by former family judge Baroness Butler-Sloss, seeking a review of the current law. 
 
 However, there is little immediate chance of change in England and Wales. 
 
 Mrs Owens' lawyers had suggested a "modest shift" of focus in interpretation of legislation was required. 
 
 They argued she should not have had to prove Mr Owens' behaviour has been "unreasonable", only that she should not "reasonably be expected" to remain with him. 
 
 Nigel Dyer QC, who led Mr Owens' legal team, disagreed and raised concerns about the introduction of divorce on "demand". 
 
 One Supreme Court judge said she reached her conclusion with "no enthusiasm whatsoever" but that Parliament would have to decide whether to introduce "no-fault" divorce on demand. 
 
 Another said Parliament had "decreed" that being in a "wretchedly unhappy marriage" was not a ground for divorce. 
 
 Grounds for divorce in England and Wales: 
 
 When you apply for a divorce you must prove your marriage has broken down and give one of the following five reasons: 
 
 Adultery 
 
 Unreasonable behaviour 
 
 Desertion 
 
 You have lived apart for more than two years and both agree to the divorce 
 
 You have lived apart for at least five years, even if your husband or wife disagrees 
 
 Source: Gov.UK ||||| A woman who wants to divorce her husband of 40 years because she says their marriage is unhappy has lost her case. Supreme court judges “reluctantly” told her she must remain his wife, because a joyless marriage is not adequate grounds for a divorce if one spouse refuses to agree. 
 
 The courts can’t make Tini Owens love her husband | Suzanne Moore Read more 
 
 Five judges at the UK’s highest court unanimously upheld rulings by a family court and the court of appeal that Tini Owens, 68, must stay married to Hugh Owens, 80, despite her complaint that the marriage was loveless and had broken down. 
 
 “The appeal of Mrs Owens must be dismissed. She must remain married to Mr Owens for the time being,” the supreme court judge Lord Wilson said in the majority ruling. “Parliament may wish to consider whether to replace a law which denies to Mrs Owens any present entitlement to a divorce in the above circumstances.” 
 
 Tini’s case has thrust the country’s lack of provision for no-fault divorce into the spotlight. Even spouses mutually seeking to end a marriage must, unless they have been living apart, assign blame and make often damaging allegations that lawyers say inflame potentially amicable proceedings. 
 
 Tini and Hugh Owens married in 1978, lived together in Broadway, Worcestershire, and have two grownup children. Tini first consulted solicitors about a divorce in 2012, but despite her having an affair the couple continued to live together until February 2015. 
 
 Tini Owens is locked into an unhappy marriage – this is why we need ‘no fault’ divorce Read more 
 
 In May of that year, Tini petitioned for divorce, alleging that her husband had prioritised his work over their home life, his treatment of her lacked love and affection, he was often moody and argumentative, he had disparaged her in front of others, and that she had grown apart from him. 
 
 Hugh denied the allegations about his behaviour, and while admitting that their relationship had never been – in the paraphrase of Lord Wilson – emotionally intense, he said the couple had learned to “rub along”. He said he still hoped his wife would change her mind and return to live with him. 
 
 In an initial hearing in October 2015, a judge allowed Tini to expand her grounds for divorce to 27 examples. But he nevertheless dismissed her petition, ruling that her case was flimsy and exaggerated. The judge said that while Hugh was “somewhat old-school”, Tini was more sensitive than most wives. 
 
 She took her petition to the court of appeal, where it was again dismissed. The three appeal court judges said she had failed to establish, in the legal sense, that her marriage had irretrievably broken down, despite one saying she had reached her conclusion with “no enthusiasm whatsoever”. 
 
 The supreme court’s judgment on Wednesday morning was her last hope. 
 
 The justices analysed the rival legal arguments, which revolved around concepts of “unreasonable” behaviour and “fault”, at a hearing in London in May. They delivered their ruling on Wednesday. 
 
 Lord Wilson noted in the judgment that Tini would be able to divorce in 2020, when the couple will have been separated for five years and she will be eligible for a divorce without consent or evidence of fault. 
 
 Nobody’s fault: why does the state trap people in unhappy marriages? | Jo Edwards Read more 
 
 In a concurring judgment, his colleague Lady Hale said she found it “a very troubling case”, but that it was not for judges to change the law. 
 
 Resolution, an organisation that represents 6,500 lawyers working in family law and supports the introduction of no-fault divorce, said the judgment confirmed there was a “divorce crisis” in England and Wales. 
 
 It is rare for spouses to defend a petition for a divorce, but legislation makes it difficult for even mutual divorces when, in the absence of a period living apart, one party must provide evidence of unreasonable behaviour or adultery before the marriage can be ended. 
 
 Nigel Shepherd, the body’s former chair and longtime campaigner for no-fault divorce, said: “Resolution intervened on behalf of Mrs Owens because we believed that under the current law there should be a way to free her from a marriage that is clearly over. 
 
 “In practice, our current laws can often create unnecessary conflict in divorce – forcing couples to blame each other when there is no real need, other than a legal requirement, to do so. For over 30 years Resolution has been campaigning for a system fit for a modern age, where separating couples are treated like responsible adults and supported to resolve their differences as amicably as possible.” 
 
 Simon Fisher, a divorce lawyer at the solicitors Gardner Leader, said it was “likely that we’ll see a rise in divorce petitions containing embellished and inflammatory grounds for divorce to ensure that applications proceed without any issues as in the Owens’ case”.
– "Till death do us part" may have sounded good to Tini Owens in 1978, but the British woman changed her mind on that timeline years ago and has been vying to end what she calls a "loveless," deteriorated marriage. But the UK's Supreme Court has dealt her a harsh blow, unanimously ruling that just because she's unhappy in the union doesn't mean she can end it, the Guardian reports. The 68-year-old has been mulling a divorce from 80-year-old husband Hugh Owens since 2012, claiming he has behaved unreasonably, but he refuses to agree to the split, saying that any issues in their marriage are because she had an affair or is simply "bored." Per the BBC, UK law decrees a divorce can only be granted without a spouse's OK in cases of adultery, desertion, or "unreasonable behavior"; if those aren't the case, a divorce will be granted only after the spouses live apart for five years. That means Tini Owens, who moved out of their shared home in February 2015, will have to wait until 2020 to sever all legal ties, unless Hugh Owens changes his mind. A family court judge turned down her divorce request in 2016, a decision that an appeals court panel agreed with last year. The Supreme Court judges say their decision was made with reluctance—one said she agreed to the ruling with "no enthusiasm whatsoever"—but that it's up to Parliament to change the law to allow no-fault divorces so people can get out of "wretchedly unhappy marriages." Tini Owens' lawyer says she's "devastated" by the ruling and "cannot move forward with her life." The Owenses have two adult children. (A Mississippi woman fled to Washington state to get her divorce.)