(dissenting) — I dissent. The majority recognizes the general rule that a guardian is without standing to maintain a divorce in behalf of his ward. It carves out an exception, however, on the theory that the ground for divorce in the instant case is the same ground upon which an annulment of a voidable marriage could have been maintained prior to the Divorce Act of 1949, RCW 26.08.020; and that the policy for the rule which denies a guardian thé standing to institute a divorce action in behalf of his ward on this ground should not apply. Moreover, the ground for the divorce here represents legal impediments to the marriage rather than for injuries personal to the parties to the marriage. I disagree.
The reasoning of the majority meets only a part of the policy supporting the general rule. The rule that a guardian may not maintain an action for divorce unless authorized by statute is premised on the very personal nature of the marital relationship. Pulos v. Pulos, 140 Cal. App. 2d 913, 295 P.2d 907 (1956); Cox v. Armstrong, 122 Colo. 227, 221 P.2d 371 (1950); Sternberg v. Sternberg, 203 Ga. 298, 46 S.E.2d 349 (1948). Also see Annot., 6 A.L.R.3d 681 (1966). The policy for the rule is also founded upon the fact that there are no marital offenses which of themselves work a dissolution of the marital relationship. Scott v. Scott, 45 So. 2d 878 (Fla. 1950). Rather, the courts recognize that in the injured spouse always rests the right to forgive, excuse, or pardon for religious reasons or any other motive. As stated in Cohen v. Cohen, 73 Cal. App. 2d 330, 166 P.2d 622 (1946) at 335:
It was the privilege of appellant as the allegedly aggrieved party to decline to seek a divorce, and regardless of the motives behind her attitude it was not within the province of her counsel, her guardian or the court to force one upon her.
*390There is an underlying principle in the law. to preserve the marriage where possible. In Washington we applied this principle to a voidable marriage in the case of In re Hollopeter, 52 Wash. 41, 47, 100 P. 159 (1909):
There being no statute permitting a parent to maintain an action to annul the marriage of a child in this state, and considering the policy of the law to sustain, rather than abrogate, the marriage relation, we are constrained to hold that the parents cannot maintain their action.
It must also be observed that divorce is purely statutory in origin, and unrecognized in common law. Therefore, the court has no jurisdiction to grant relief unless authority to do so can be found in Washington statutes. Palmer v. Palmer, 42 Wn.2d 715, 258 P.2d 475 (1953); Ruge v. Ruge, 97 Wash. 51, 165 P. 1063 (1917); see, Arneson v. Arneson, 38 Wn.2d 99, 227 P.2d 1016 (1951).
I do not find that our divorce statutes specifically or impliedly grant a guardian authority to maintain an action of divorce. The Divorce Act of 1949, supra, relating to grounds for divorce, makes no mention of guardianship authority but states very simply, “Divorce may be granted by the superior court on application of the party injured for the following reasons: . . .” Moreover, speaking of the Divorce Act of 1949, this court in Arneson v. Arneson, supra, stated at 101:
Nowhere in the act is the court empowered to exercise the prerogatives peculiar to other statutory proceedings. One ready test of a proper limitation on the jurisdiction of the court, in a given case, can be applied by determining who are the necessary and/or proper parties to the action.
The spouses are made parties to a divorce action by due process, and the state is made one by statute. The children are not parties, but, as a subject of the action, they have been made the chief concern of both the legislature and the courts. Other persons can not be made parties to the action by any statutory form of notice, nor can they intervene therein.
The plaintiff was limited by our ruling in Saville v. Saville, 44 Wn.2d 793, 796, 271 P.2d 432 (1954), to an action *391for divorce under the facts of this case. In view of the policy of the law to protect and promote the marital relationship, the general rule that a guardian cannot maintain an action to dissolve a marriage by divorce, in the absence of express statutory authority, should apply. The guardian was therefore without standing to maintain this action either for an annulment or divorce. The trial court was without jurisdiction to enter judgment granting “an absolute decree of annulment or, in the alternative, an absolute decree of divorce.”
The judgment should be reversed and the cause dismissed.
Hill and Neill, JJ., concur in the result of the dissent.
February 6,1970. Petition for rehearing denied.