M. M. (Otherwise G.) v P. M
| Jurisdiction | Ireland |
| Judge | Mr. Justice McMahon |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1986 |
| Neutral Citation | 1986 WJSC-HC 1072 |
| Docket Number | 1982 No. 6M. |
| Court | High Court |
| Date | 01 January 1986 |
1986 WJSC-HC 1072
THE HIGH COURT
BETWEEN:
AND
Citations:
W (ORSE K) V W 1967 3 AER 178
BAXTER V BAXTER 1948 AC 274
MATRIMONIAL CAUSES & MARRIAGE LAW (IRL) (AMDT) ACT 1870 S13
Synopsis:
EVIDENCE
Marriage
Consummation - Essentials - Husband's incapacity - Erection and penetration achieved - Ejaculation of semen absent - Consummation of marriage complete notwithstanding absence - Application of principles adopted by ecclesiastical courts of Ireland prior to 1870 - Held that the wife's petition for a decree of nullity should be dismissed - Matrimonial Causes and Marriage Law (Ir.) Amendment Act, 1870, s.13 - (1982/6 M - McMahon J. - 19/12/85) - [1986] ILRM 515
|M. v. M.|
MARRIAGE
Consummation
Proof - Essentials - Husband's incapacity - Erection and penetration achieved - Ejaculation of semen absent - Consummation of marriage complete notwithstanding absence - Application of principles adopted by ecclesiastical courts of Ireland prior to 1870 - Held that the wife's petition for a decree of nullity should be dismissed - Matrimonial Causes and Marriage Law (Ir.) Amendment Act, 1870, s.13 - (1982/6 M - McMahon J. - 19/12/85) - [1986] ILRM 515
|M. v. M.|
Judgment of Mr. Justice McMahondelivered the 19th day of December 1985.
This is a petition for a Decree of Nullity based on the alleged impotence of the husband. The parties met in May, 1979. The husband is a mason by trade and the wife was then teaching French. The marriage took place in December, 1979. The case made by the Petitioner is that the husband was able to achieve erection and penetration but not the emission of seed. This was not disputed by the husband who appeared at the hearing by Counsel and confirmed the wife's evidence. I am satisfied that although the parties are agreed as to the facts relied on to constitute impotency there is no collusion between them. In sexual relationships which the husband had with other women before marriage he was unable to achieve emission and the same defect was experienced when the husband and wife had pre-marital sex. Before marriage the husband had an examination by an endocrinologist and a psychologist. The endocrinologist advised the Plaintiff that he had no physical defect. The psychologist gave his opinion that thedefect was psychological and he was hopeful that when the parties were married the sexual relationship would improve so as to achieveemission.
After their marriage in the sexual relations between the parties the husband achieved erection and penetration but was unable to achieve emission. As a consequence of this the marriage relationship disimproved gradually and intercourse and communication became progressively less. The wife felt that her husband did not care for her and as time went on the feeling became stronger leading to rows and their eventual break-up. The wife left the family home in November, 1980 and the petition in this...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
U.F. (Otherwise U.C.) v J.C.
...1 of the Constitution vested exclusively in the Oireachtas. Maher v. The Attorney GeneralIR [1973] I.R. 140 and M. (orse. G.) v. M.DLRM [1986] ILRM 515 applied. Per Curiam. That the development by the courts of the law of nullity in a fragmented and ad hoc fashion was particularly undesirab......
-
Health Services Executive v Judge White & Others (notice parties)
...1 ILRM 532, O'Doherty v AG [1941] IR 569, State (Quinn) v Ryan [1965] IR 70, Sinnott v Minster for Education [2001] 2 IR 549, MM v PM [1986] ILRM 515, Buckley v AG [1950] IR 67, O'Reilly v Limerick Corporation [1989] ILRM 181, TD v Minister for Education [2001] 4 IR 259, FN v Minister for......
-
DPP v McNamara
...law grounds could not embrace failure to cause pregnancy or be expanded to allow dissolution because of emotional instability; MM v PM [1986] ILRM 515, UF v JC [1991] 2 IR 330. Perhaps the case law demonstrates that a workable test is that which asks if law is being clarified or is being ......
-
DPP v Quirke
...law grounds could not embrace failure to cause pregnancy or be expanded to allow dissolution because of emotional instability; MM v PM [1986] ILRM 515 and UF v JC [1991] 2 IR 330. Perhaps the case law demonstrates that a workable test is one which asks if law is being clarified or is being ......
-
'When Divorce is Away, Nullity's at Play': A New Ground for Annulment, its Dubious Past and its Uncertain Future
...psychological aversion to sexual intercourse within marriage, her claim of incapacity had been made out. 17 See M.M. (orse MG.) v. P.M [1986] ILRM 515 where McMahon J. observed that to introduce such a criterion would amount to an unjustified exercise ofjudicial legislation. 1s Baxter v. Ba......