E.C. (Orse. M.) v K.M.

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judgment Date: 01 January 1991
• Date: 01 January 1991
• Docket Number: [1989 No. 20M]
• Court: High Court

(H.C.)

E.C. (Otherwise E.M.)

and

K.M

- Capacity - Impotence of petitioner - Psychological basis - Factors to be considered in determining when a sufficient ground for a decree - Whether petitioner made sufficient efforts to overcome disability - Conduct of respondent - Contract voidable - "Just cause" of petition - Whether conduct of respondent amounted to repudiation of marriage -Matrimonial Causes and Marriage Law (Ireland) Amendment Act, 1870 (33 34 Vict., c. 110), s. 13.

The petitioner and the respondent were married on 15 May, 1982. Repeated efforts to consummate the marriage failed. In 1985 the petitioner was diagnosed as suffering from a psychological disorder in relation to having intercourse with the respondent which manifested itself in a contraction of the vaginal muscles with the result that intercourse was impossible, a condition known as vaginismus. The petitioner received therapy and counselling and continued in her efforts to consummate the marriage. Apart from attending counselling with the petitioner for a brief period, the respondent made no efforts to help the petitioner to overcome her problem. He drank heavily and subjected her to intermittent physical violence. The parties separated in 1987. The petitioner later obtained a Roman Catholic Church annulment on the ground of her own impotence. That petition was supported by the respondent. Following this the petitioner established a normal sexual relationship with another man. Correspondence between solicitors indicated that the respondent did not wish to uphold the marriage. The court heard the evidence of two psychiatrists, one of whom expressed the view that whether or not vaginismus was a permanent disability depended on several factors including the willingness of the patient to co-operate with appropriate medical treatment, the nature of the marital relationship, and the degree of co-operation given by the spouse of the patient. The other psychiatrist was of the opinion that the petitioner, desperate to consummate the marriage, had done all she could towards achieving that end. Held by Barr J., in granting the...