C (D) v M (N)

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judge: Mr. Justice Geoghegan
• Judgment Date: 26 June 1997
• Neutral Citation: [1997] IEHC 105
• Date: 26 June 1997
• Court: High Court
• Docket Number: No.27 M/1994

[1997] IEHC 105

THE HIGH COURT

No.27 M/1994

C (D) v. M (N)

MATRIMONIAL

BETWEEN

D.C.

PETITIONER

AND

N. M. (FALSELY KNOWN AS N. C.)

RESPONDENT

Citations:

MARRIAGES (IRL) ACT 1844 S19

MARRIAGES ACT 1972 S7

MARRIAGES (IRL) ACT 1844 S20

MARRIAGES ACT 1972 S19

R V INHABITANTS OF BIRMINGHAM 8 B & CR 29

FALOON MARRIAGE LAW OF IRELAND

E (I) V E (W) 1985 ILRM 691

MARRIAGES (IRL) ACT 1844 S49

FORGERY ACT 1913

Synopsis:

Family

Nullity; petition; validity of marriage; grounds for nullity; whether undue influence exerted by parents on parties to get married; whether husband under undue pressure by respondent as a result of pregnancy; whether parental consent given; petitioner unaware of absence of consent; s.19 Marriages (Ireland) Act, 1844; whether marriage invalid if consent forged Held: Nullity refused High Court: Geoghegan J. 26/06/1997

D.C. v. N.M.

[1997] 2 IR 218

1 Judgment of Mr. Justice Geoghegandelivered the 26th day of June, 1997.

2 This is a petition for nullity in respect of an alleged marriage between the parties on the 28th February, 1978 in the Roman Catholic Church of St. Mary's at Passage West, County Cork. The petition is opposed and the Respondent has instituted separate proceedings for judicial separation with the usual consequential orders for the maintenance of herself and her children. The hearing of the judicial separation proceedings has been postponed pending the determination of this nullity suit.

3 There are several different grounds on which the Petitioner seeks nullity. These can be summarised as follows:-

4 1. The Petitioner's consent to enter into a marriage was obtained by the undue influence and/or duress exerted upon him by the Respondent by reason of her alleged pregnancy by him.

5 2. At the date of the alleged marriage, the Respondent was under the age of 21 and that the necessary consent under Section 19 of the Marriages (Ireland) Act, 1844 as inserted by Section 7 of the Marriages Act, 1972, had not been obtained.

6 3. The marriage had been solemnised on foot of her forged consent purporting to be the consent of the Respondent's father.

7 4. The forged consent vitiated the marriage in that the Petitioner entered into the marriage in reliance on there having been a properconsent.

8 5. There was not a valid consent to the marriage by either the Petitioner or the Respondent in that each married under the pressure of the pregnancy and surrounding circumstances and that such consent as there was, was not the product of a fully free exercise of the independent will of the parties thereto.

9 6. The Respondent lacked the capacity to form or alternatively to maintain or sustain a lasting relationship with the Petitioner by virtue of her inability to face reality as a consequence of a seriously immature personality.

10 7. The Respondent had an apparent incapacity to control her compulsion to be sexually unfaithful to the Petitioner due to a seriously immature personality.

11 I should state at the outset that in my opinion the last ground is quite unsustainable. There was one piece of evidence which might indicate unfaithfulness, if true, but since I regard it as irrelevant to the nullity proceedings and might possibly be relevant to the judicial separation proceedings if nullity is refused, I do not intend to make any finding on it. It issufficient to state that there was no evidence whatsoever that would justify an allegation that at the time of the marriage, the Respondent suffered from some uncontrollable urge to be sexually unfaithful to her marriage partner.

12 I propose now to deal with the more general and usual grounds for nullity and to leave to later on in this judgment the grounds numbered 2, 3 and 4 above which all relate to the absence of consent by the Respondent's father and the forged consent.

13 I will start with the allegation of undue influence. I do not consider that there was any duress or undue influence in this case. For some years past it has been quite common for nullity to be granted in a case where a young girl became unexpectedly pregnant and there was parental or external pressure exerted on one or both of the parties to get married. If that pressure was excessive so as to prevent them forming an independent mature decision of their own, the Courts have not considered the marriage to be a valid marriage and have had no hesitation in declaring nullity. That, however, is not the case here. There is no evidence of pressure by either set of parents or by any outside person on either the Petitioner or the Respondent to marry each other. I have no doubt that each wanted to get married and indicated that wish to the other. I am satisfied also that there had been at any rate a long term plan to get married, though no date had been fixed. At the time of the pregnancy this was a couple in a loving relationship. There is no question of the pregnancy having arisen from a single night's passion. Having heard the Petitioner and the Respondent in the witness box, I am quite satisfied that the decision to get married at the...