D.C. v N.M. (Falsely Known as N.C.)

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judgment Date: 26 June 1997
• Date: 26 June 1997
• Docket Number: [1994 No. 27 M]
• Court: High Court

D.C. v. N.M. (falsely known as N.C.) (Nullity)

D.C.

Petitioner

and

N.M. (falsely known as N.C.)

Respondent

[1994 No. 27 M]

High Court

Family - Marriage - Nullity- Husband - Petition - Grounds - Whether petitioner subject to duress or undue influence in entering into marriage - Respondent under twenty-one years of age at date of marriage - Consent of respondent's father forged - Whether the absence of a valid consent invalidating marriage - Marriage (Ireland) Act, 1844 (7 & 8 Vict c. 81), s. 19, sub-s. 1.

Section 19, sub-s. 1 of the Marriages (Ireland) Act, 1844, as inserted by s. 7 of the Marriage Act, 1972, provides:—

"A marriage shall not be solemnised where either of the parties . . . is under the age of twenty-one unless there shall first be obtained (a) the consents of the guardians, or the consent of the sole guardian, of such of the parties so under age…"

The parties were married following on the pregnancy of the respondent when she was nineteen years of age.

The petitioner, in seeking an order of nullity in relation to the marriage, alleged that he had entered into the marriage by reason of the undue influence and/or duress exerted upon him by the respondent by reason of her pregnancy and that he had not, as a consequence, given a valid consent to the marriage. He also submitted that as the respondent was under twenty-one years of age, consent was required under s. 19, sub-s. 1 of the Marriages (Ireland) Act, 1844. The marriage had been solemnised on foot of her forged consent purporting to be the consent of her father and that forged consent vitiated the marriage in that the petitioner had entered into the marriage in reliance on there having been a proper consent.

Held by Geoghegan J., in refusing the petition, 1, that a nullity would be granted where parental or external pressure was exerted on one or both of the parties to get married, such that they were prevented from forming an independent, mature decision of their own.

2. That there was no evidence of such pressure in this case, in that:—

• (a) at the time of the pregnancy the couple were in a loving relationship and had already made plans to marry;

• (b) the petitioner was under no undue or excessive pressure from the respondent and he was under no pressure at all from anyone else;

• (c) the couple were not particularly young at the date of the marriage;

• (d) there was no psychiatric illness in either party;

• (e) the petitioner had, until a short time before the hearing of the petition, expressed the hope that his marriage could be sustained.

3. That s. 19 was directory only and the mere absence of consent could not invalidate the marriage.

Semble that the same proposition applies if s. 19 was breached knowingly.

I.E. v. W.E. [1985] I.L.R.M. 691 distinguished.

4. That the fact that the consent was forged did not render the marriage invalid under s. 19. That section being directory only, it could not be read into it that it was not directory in the case of a forged consent.

5. That the petitioner had failed to establish that, independently of s. 19, that forged consent rendered the marriage voidable. The consent could not have that effect where both parties were aware of the forgery, as they were in this case. Even if both parties had not been so aware, the petitioner would have to establish that to the knowledge of the respondent he had relied on the consent in entering into the marriage and would not have entered into it had he known of the forgery.

Obiter that the use of the forged consent for the purposes of misleading the priest was an offence under the Forgery Act, 1913 but that...