K.W.T. v D.A.T.

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judgment Date: 18 March 1992
• Date: 18 March 1992
• Docket Number: [1991 No. 2M]
• Court: High Court

K.W.T. v. D.A.T.

K.W.T.

Petitioner

and

D.A.T.

Respondent

[1991 No. 2M]

High Court

Husband and wife - Marriage - Nullity - Ability to enter into and sustain a normal marriage relationship - Emotional capacity of the parties - Whether the emotional inadequacy of the parties one for the other was of a sufficient degree for nullity - Function of the trial judge - Matrimonal Causes and Marriage Law (Ireland) Amendment Act, 1870 (33 & 34 Vict., c. 110), s. 7.

The petitioning husband and respondent wife were married in October, 1972. The marriage survived outwardly for a lengthy period without apparent discord or obvious mental distress, suggesting an adequate if less than satisfactory relationship had been achieved. The parties communicated, discussed and agreed many matters in an efficient and effective manner but they were unable to discuss problems together. There was a lack of emotional closeness in the relationship. The parties had three children and lived together until 1989 when the petitioner was excluded from the family home.

The petitioner brought an application for a declaration that the marriage was null and void and of no legal effect, claiming that at the date of the purported marriage, due to their respective states of mind, mental condition, emotional development and personality, they lacked the capacity to enter into and sustain a normal, functional, life-long marriage relationship with each other.

The two psychiatrists who gave evidence on behalf of the petitioner and the respondent, respectively, were of the view that at the time of the marriage the respondent had an immature and insecure personality as a result of which she would require an unusually high degree of emotional support if she was to preserve the relationship which marriage involved. The respondent's immaturity and insecurity was of such a degree as would prevent her from forming and sustaining a normal functional marriage relationship with any man who was not in a position to supply an unusual or special degree of maturity, understanding and sympathy for her. According to B., the psychiatrist who gave evidence on behalf of the petitioner, the respondent did eventually achieve emotional security, although this occurred after the marriage had irretrievably broken down.

Held by Murphy J., in refusing the petition, 1, that a decree of nullity might be granted where by reason of elements of immaturity alone and notwithstanding the absence of any psychiatric disorder the parties to a purported marriage did not have in combination with each other an adequate emotional capacity to sustain a viable marriage relationship.

• D. v. C. [1984] I.L.R.M. 173, P.C. v. V.C.[1990] 2 I.R. 91, U.F. (orse. U.C.) v. J.C.[1991] 2 I.R. 330 considered.

2. That it was the duty of the trial judge to determine whether, as a matter of degree, the inadequacy of the emotional relationship was such as to render the purported marriage a nullity, and although the expert evidence of psychiatrists was of paramount importance, the judge could not abdicate his function to such experts.

3. In the instant case the emotional inadequacy of the respondent was not irreversible and it was possible that the parties' combined problem could have been solved or ameliorated if during their lives together some event had occurred which resulted in one or both of the parties obtaining the requisite advice or assistance. Accordingly the inadequacy of the emotional response of the parties in this case one to the other was not of such a degree as would justify the granting of a decree of nullity.

Cases mentioned in this report:—

D. v. C. [1984] I.L.R.M. 173.

M.M. (orse G.) v. P.M. [1986] I.L.R.M. 515.

P.C. (orse O'B.) v. D. O'B. (Unreported, High Court, Carroll J., 2nd October, 1985).

P.C. v. V.C. [1990] 2 I.R. 91.

U.F. (orse U.C.) v. J.C. [1991] 2 I.R. 330; [1991] I.L.R.M. 65.

Matrimonial Petition.

By petition dated the 11th December, 1990, and filed on the 15th January, 1991, the petitioner sought a decree that the ceremony of marriage between the petitioner and the respondent was null and void. The Master of the High Court made an order on the 30th January, 1991, granting the petitioner liberty to issue a citation for service on the respondent. The citation was issued on the 21st February, 1991. The respondent entered an appearance on the 6th March, 1991. The matter came before the Master of the High Court on the 24th April, 1991, pursuant to a notice of motion of the 4th April, 1991, seeking an order setting the time and mode of trial, the appointment of medical inspectors and settling the issues.

The relevant facts have been summarised in the headnote and are fully set out in the judgment of Murphy J., post.

The petition was heard by the High Court (Murphy J.) on the 28th, 29th and 30th January, 1992.

Cur. adv. vult.

Murphy J.

In these proceedings the petitioner claims that due to the state of mind, mental condition, emotional development and personality of the respondent or the petitioner or both of them their purported marriage was null and void and of no legal effect as they lacked the capacity to enter into and sustain a normal functional life-long marriage relationship with each other.

The marriage ceremony between the petitioner and the respondent took place on the 5th October, 1972, at a Roman Catholic Church in the city of Dublin. Thereafter and subject to the special exigencies of the petitioner's profession the parties lived together as man and wife until the month of January, 1989. Three children were born to the parties, namely C. born in June, 1975, O. born in January, 1979, and N. born in April, 1983.

The petitioner was born in January, 1950, and was reared in what would appear to be reasonable or average circumstances and in the Church of Ireland faith. The respondent was born in May, 1949, and was brought up in the Roman Catholic faith again in circumstances which would appear, superficially at any rate, to represent something approximating to or better than an average standard of physical and emotional support subject to certain vicissitudes which were no doubt disturbing but not altogether extraordinary.

The parties met as undergraduates in university in Dublin in 1969. It would appear that the petitioner was the better organised and more successful student. The respondent feels that she had difficulties in making the transition from secondary school to undergraduate level. Both parties did graduate and the petitioner had the distinction of winning a scholarship to a university in England. I think that both parties were understandably proud of...