P.C. v V.C.

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judgment Date: 01 January 1990
• Date: 01 January 1990
• Docket Number: [1987 1M]
• Court: High Court

P.C. v. v. C.

P.C.

Petitioner

and

V.C.

Respondent

[1987 1M]

High Court

Marriage - Husband and wife - Nullity - Petitioning husband - No repudiation of marriage contract by respondent - Emotional immaturity of parties - How far a sufficient ground for nullity - Whether petitioner can rely on his own want of capacity - Approbation - Matrimonial Causes and Marriage Law (Ireland) Amendment Act, 1870 (33 & 34 Vict., c. 110), s. 13.

The petitioning husband and respondent wife were married on the 17th August, 1983. The petitioner brought an application for a declaration that the marriage was null and void, claiming that at the date of the purported marriage ceremony both parties, because of their respective states of mind, mental conditions, emotional development and personalities, were unable to enter into and sustain a normal, functional, life-long marital relationship with one another. The petitioner and respondent were respectively 31 and 26 years old when the marriage took place. The respondent discovered that she was pregnant in November, 1983. As the respondent was quite ill during her pregnancy she returned to her parents' home and she remained there until the birth of S. on the 8th July, 1984. She remained with her parents until June, 1985, when there was an attempted reconciliation and the parties lived together for one year and eight months thereafter, although occupying separate bedrooms from January, 1986 onwards. In March, 1987, the respondent left the matrimonial home and returned to her parents where she remained ever since.

The petitioner and respondent had similar backgrounds and lived across the road from one another. There was little if any social contact between the petitioner's parents and the respondent's parents. The petitioner was very concerned about the respondent's deep attachment to her parents and he was obsessed with the respondent's attachment to her original family contrasted with his own place in her affections. There were various disagreements between the parties throughout their engagement and it was broken off in April, 1983, and again in June of that year. Arguments between the couple that seemed to relate to rather trivial matters developed into major confrontations before they were resolved. The purchase of the engagement ring resulted in an argument and a row concerning the number of guests who should be invited to the wedding led to the engagement being called off. The subject of a pre-marriage course was a bone of contention between the parties. Another dispute arose concerning the respondent's wish to be given a key to what was to be her matrimonial home, before the marriage. This argument led to the engagement being broken off the second time. Even on arrival back from the honeymoon a serious argument broke out concerning the allotment of wardrobes in the couple's bedroom. The petitioner began to keep a diary recording the history of the marriage and it became a chronicle of the ways in which the respondent failed to live up to her duties and contained matters of complaint against her mother and father.

A number of attempts were made to heal the relationship including attending a marriage guidance counsellor. While living together the petitioner initiated proceedings in the ecclesiastical and civil courts claiming nullity, while the respondent commenced proceedings seeking a divorce amensa et thoro.

The respondent opposed the petition. B. a consultant psychiatrist called on behalf of the petitioner, concluded that the marriage was doomed from the outset by reason of elements of immaturity in the character and temperament of both parties and an inability on both sides to form and maintain a functional, viable marriage relationship with each other.

A consultant psychiatrist on behalf of the respondent did not consider that there was immaturity of such degree on the respondent's part as to interfere with her ability to form the marriage contract and said that she was capable of understanding it and was committed to it.

On application to the High Court by way of petition it was

Held by O'Hanlon J. in granting a decree of nullity of marriage, 1, that the petitioner could rely on his own want of capacity, primarily because of the fact that the want of capacity existed to some extent on both sides.

B.D. v. M.C. (orse. M.D.) (Unreported, High Court, Barrington J., March, 1987) followed.

2. That, as both parties entered into the marriage contract innocently, being unaware that by reason of factors connected with the personality and psychology of each partner going beyond mere temperamental incompatibility, it would be impossible for them to sustain a normal marriage relationship, the petitioner should not be denied a decree of nullity because the respondent wished to hold him to the marriage bond.

3. That, the delay on the part of the petitioner in applying for a decree of nullity was not of such an order as to disqualify him from relief at this stage.

4. That, the petitioner and the respondent were unable to enter into and sustain a normal marital relationship with each other by reason of incapacity deriving from lack of emotional maturity and psychological weakness and disturbance affecting both parties to a greater or lesser degree.

Semble. In the case of a voidable marriage a petitioner may rely on his or her own infirmity - physical or psychological—to seek an annulment without establishilng that the respondent has repudiated the marriage.

• McM. v. McM.IR [1936] I.R. 177 considered. Dicta of Court of Appeal in Harthan v. HarthanELR[1949] P. 115 approved.

Cases mentioned in this report:—

D.C. v. D.W.DLRM [1987] I.L.R.M. 58.

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

B.D. v. M.C. (orse. M.D.) (Unreported, High Court, Barrington J., March, 1987) (referred to in Duncan and Scully: Marriage Breakdown in Ireland, p. 25).

F. v. F.IR [1990] 1 I.R. 348.

Harthan v. HarthanELRUNKUNKUNKUNK [1949] P. 115; [1948] 2 All E.R. 639; [1949] L.J.R. 115; 92 S.J. 586; 206 L.T. 243.

R.S.J. v. J.S.J.DLRM [1982] I.L.R.M. 263.

McM v. McMIR [1936] I.R. 177.

S. v. S. (Unreported, Supreme Court, 1st July, 1976).

W. v. P. (Unreported, High Court, Barrington J., 7th June, 1984).

Petition.

The relevant facts have been summarised in the headnote and appear fully in the judgment of O'Hanlon J., post.

The petitioner issued a petition on the 14th January, 1987. He was given liberty to issue a citation on the respondent on the 20th January, 1987. The respondent entered an appearance on the 30th January, 1987, and filed an answer to the petition on the 27th February, 1987. The matter came before the Master of the High Court on the 24th June, 1987, pursuant to notice of motion of the 4th May, 1987, seeking an order setting the time and mode of trial and settling the issues. The case was heard before the High Court (O'Hanlon J.) on the 3rd, 8th, 9th, 10th, 15th, 16th and 18th November, 1988.

Cur. adv. vult.

O'Hanlon J.

This is an application by the petitioner (hereinafter, for convenience, referred to as "the husband") against the respondent (hereinafter, for convenience, referred to as "the wife") for a declaration that the marriage entered into between the parties on the 17th August, 1983, was null and void.

The claim is made that at the date of the purported marriage ceremony, the husband and the wife, because of their respective states of mind, mental conditions, emotional development and personalities, were unable to enter into and sustain a normal, functional, life-long marital relationship one with the other.

Some of the important dates, having a bearing on the issues which have to be tried, are as follows. The husband was born in or about the year 1952 and the wife in or about the year 1957, so they were respectively 31 and 26 years of age when the marriage ceremony took place. They first met in or about the month of February, 1982; became formally engaged at the end of December that year, and married in August of the following year. Their honeymoon period lasted from the 17th August to the 3rd September, 1983; in or about the first week of November, 1983, the wife discovered that she was pregnant.

As she was very ill with what is sometimes inaccurately described as "morning sickness" she returned to live with her parents in the family home; was hospitalised for about two weeks owing to the severity of her symptoms; returned to the parental home and remained there until the birth of a baby daughter, on the 8th July, 1984.

The birth took place in the Rotunda Hospital, and after the birth the wife again returned to live with her parents, accompanied by her new baby, and she continued to live with them, and apart from the husband for a further year, until the 27th June, 1985.

An attempt was then made at reconciliation, and the husband and wife lived together in the matrimonial home for about one year and eight months, although occupying separate bedrooms from the 11th January, 1986, onwards. On or about the 5th March, 1987, the wife left the matrimonial home, taking her daughter with her, and returned to her parents' home and she has continued to live with her parents ever since.

It is now necessary to examine the background to this unhappy relationship between the husband and wife. The disparity in ages between them should have been of no significance. Their family circumstances were similar—each was the only child of parents who appeared to have a happy and stable relationship between them. The two families lived within a short distance of each other, on opposite sides of a quiet suburban road in C., Dublin, although not known to each other until the husband and wife met at a dance class in early 1982.

Both parties were well-educated—the husband was a qualified accountant, and the wife had a degree in Arts and a Higher Diploma in Education, and had some experience as a teacher, as well as having undertaken secretarial work. They shared the same...