(E) P v (M) C

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judge: Mr. Justice Barron
• Judgment Date: 01 January 1985
• Neutral Citation: 1984 WJSC-HC 1629
• Docket Number: No 22 m/1982
• Court: High Court
• Date: 01 January 1985

1984 WJSC-HC 1629

No 22 m/1982

P (E) v C (M)

(E.) P

.v.

(M.) C (OTHERWISE P.)

Subject Headings:

MARRIAGE: nullity

1 Judgment of Mr. Justice Barron delivered the 13th day of March 1984

2 The facts in this case are as follows. The parties both lived in Dundalk and had known each other since they were children. They started going out together in the month of February 1979 when they were then aged 21 and 20 years respectively. They saw each other at first a couple of nights a week and then more frequently. In August 1979 the petitioner went on holiday with some friends. While he was away the respondent telephoned him and told him that she thought she was pregnant. There was no doubt in the minds of either of them that if she was then he was the father. He advised her to have a pregnancy test and this she did and was found to be pregnant. When he returned from his holidays they discussed what they should do about the matter. She was not anxious to have the child unless she was married. She said that she had two uncles in England and that one of them would be in a position to arrange an abortion for her. She was emphatic that if he did not wish to marry her, she would adopt this course. In the face of this attitude on her part the petitioner found himself with no option but to agree to marriage. Having agreed to get married the couple told the respondent's parents. They indicated to them that the pregnancy was part of the reason for getting married. The respondent's parents apparently disapproved of the marriage but did not take any steps to prevent it. The petitioner's father is dead and when he discussed the matter with his mother her attitude was that it was a matter for him.

3 The evidence establishes that the parties would not have married when they did but for the respondent's pregnancy. The petitioner says that over the four months he had been going out with the respondent he was getting to know her and that neither had at that stage any idea of marriage. His wish would have been to wait until the baby was born before coming to any decision as to their future. He says that the respondent expressed the fear that her parents would put her out of her home and regarded abortion as the only alternative to marriage. Certainly no other course was considered. Once the parties became engaged, the pre-marriage arrangements took the normal course and included a pre-marriage counselling course for five weeks which they both attended.

4 The parties were married on the 3rd November, 1979 and went to live with the respondent's parents. The petitioner says that he did not fit in particularly well with the family and that to a large extent his presence in the home was resented by the respondent's parents. He says that his wife acted as if she was still single by which he meant that she did not alter he general life style. The baby was born on the 23rd April, 1980. By this time they were making plans for their own home. Their house was bought less than half a mile from the home of the respondent's parents. The respondent did not however show the expected interest in furnishing it and getting ready for their move. She and her mother did involve themselves though in minor ways such as making curtains for the home. To some extent the respondent's attitude was brought about by her parents who interfered between the parties more than was sensible. Nevertheless they did move into their own home in August, 1980. This move resulted in bringing their marriage effectively to an end. After no more than three days the respondent wanted to terminate the marriage. Her attitude then was that she had only married to avoid the shame of a pregnancy outside marriage and to provide a name for her child. She said that having got what she wanted the marriage was over. She left after six weeks in their new home and there was an unpleasant incident when the petitioner was severely assaulted by the respondent's father and brother totally without any justification.

5 The present attitude of the respondent is that she wants maintenance for her child but none for herself. This attitude has been expressed in two letters from the respondent's solicitors to the petitioner's solicitors. The first letter is dated the 24th May, 1983 and the body of the letter is as follows:-

"We have now taken instructions from our client and can state that provided proper arrangements are entered into by your client for the maintenance of the child of the marriage, that our client will not contest your client's petition. This is also conditional on your client maintaining both our client and the child of the marriage up until the decree is obtained."

6 The second letter dated 15th August, 1983 was even more explicit. The relevant part of this letter was as follows:-

"^hellip;.our client instructs us that she is prepared to co-operate with your client and agrees that it was not her intention at the time of the alleged marriage to your client to cohabit with him. Clearly a consultation would need to take place to allow your counsel to clearly understand the nature of our client's proposed evidence. No doubt you will...