It would be a retrograde step if we accepted this amendment and put the clock back by saying that the previous law where one had to obtain an injunction, an undertaking as to damages was required. It would be impossible for a spouse of limited means to give such an undertaking. The Senator who moved the amendment rightly said that not all spouses are of limited means. There may be cases where spouses have substantial means. It would be a major innovation in the system of barring orders we have operated to invite the courts to consider whether undertakings as to damages should be offered by parties seeking these orders. It would not be appropriate to include such a measure in legislation of this scope and character. This legislation is essentially remedial in character and is designed to deal with the consequences of the Supreme Court judgment. There would be a danger that this amendment would place an ex parte interim barring order remedy out of reach for those who need it most.