O'R v B

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judge: Mr. Justice Kinlen
• Judgment Date: 01 January 1995
• Neutral Citation: 1995 WJSC-HC 1373
• Docket Number: No. 22M/1992
• Court: High Court
• Date: 01 January 1995

1995 WJSC-HC 1373

THE HIGH COURT

No. 22M/1992

O'R v. B

BETWEEN

O'R.

PETITIONER

AND

B.

RESPONDENT

Citations:

K V MCC 1982 ILRM 277

F (ORSE C) V C 1991 ILRM 65, 1991 2 IR 330

J (RS) V J (JS) 1982 ILRM 263

D V C 1984 ILRM 173

S V S 1976–1977 ILRM 156

MCM V MCM 1936 IR 177

HARTHAN V HARTHAN 1949 P 115

N (ORSE K) V K 1986 ILRM 94

S V K UNREP DENHAM 2.7.92 1992/13/4126

BANCO AMBROSIANO V ANSBACHER & CO 1987 ILRM 701

PC V VC 1990 2 IR 93

VD V MC (ORSE MD) UNREP BARRINGTON 27.3.87

SHATTER FAMILY LAW IN THE REPUBLIC OF IRELAND 2ED 73–75

AB V EB UNREP BUDD 14.10.93 1994/1/30

Synopsis:

MARRIAGE

Nullity

Husband - Petition - Grounds - Immaturity - Incapacity to form and maintain marital relationship - Absence of consent - Duress - Petition granted - Petition presented 11 years after marriage — (1992/22 M - Kinlen J. - 6/5/94) - [1995] 2 ILRM 57

|O. v. B.|

1 Judgment of Mr. Justice Kinlen delivered the 6th day of May 1994.

2 In this case the Respondent was born on the 21st of March, 1947. The Petitioner was born on the 29th of July, 1954. They were married to each other on the 12th of February, 1981. They separated in November, 1988. There was one child of the union, namely, E. who was born on the 23rd of March, 1984.

3 They lived and cohabited in County Dublin. The Petitioner made a Petition dated the 16th of April, 1992 in which he alleges that the said purported marriage between Petitioner and the Respondent was null and void and of no legal effect in that at the date of the said purported marriage, by reason of their respective states of mind, mental conditions, personalities, psychological and emotional developments, the Petitioner and the Respondent did not have the capacity to enter into and sustain a normal, functional, lifelong marital relationship with each other. He also alleges in the Petition that he did not give a full, free and informed consent to his marriage to the Respondent.

4 The Respondent did not give a full, free and informed consent to her marriage to the Petitioner.

5 It also alleges that the Respondent has repudiated the marriage between herself and the Petitioner. The Respondent in her answer, dated the 9th of December, 1992, denies that the parties did not have the capacity to enter into and sustain a normal, functional, lifelong martial relationship with each other and denies that either of them did not give a full, free and informed consent to the marriage. She also denies that she has repudiated the marriage. She also pleads that the Petitioner is not entitled to a decree because he has been guilty of unconscionable delay and has approbated the said marriage contract.

6 On Wednesday the 3rd of February, 1993 the Master ordered these issues to be tried by a Judge without a jury and appointed Dr. B., Psychiatrist, to examine the Respondent and the Petitioner from a psychiatric point of view and to report in writing to the Court. He also ordered that Dr. I. B., Psychiatrist, carry out an examination of the Petitioner and the Respondent from a psychiatric point of view and to report in writing to the Court. I heard the evidence of Fr. G., a Franciscan who had been Chaplin from 1971 to 1975 at Colaiste Mhuire in Ennis and there he got to know the Petitioner and his family. He was the youngest child. His mother was very possessive and manipulative. His father was irascible. Her brother had been a Parish Priest in England. He had a stroke. He was a very demanding, strong minded person. He came to live with them and became the dominant element in the house. The Petitioner's mother and father moved out of the main room and gave it over to the priest. They had separated rooms thereafter.

7 In his view, the Petitioner was a very insecure and diffident person, coming to see him weekly. He went to college in Dublin. He came home at weekends. At that stage he came to see Fr. G. occasionally. He felt he was very happy in Dublin. Later the priest was transferred to Dublin and saw a lot of the Petitioner. He also got to know the Respondent. In his conversations with her he felt that she deserved a more mature relationship. She came from New York where she had been unhappy. She was 7 years older but this was not a major concern. For the Petitioner she was a prop. The priest was surprised and disappointed at their engagement because he felt that the Petitioner was not ready for it. His personality had not blossomed. The priest was asked to marry them. He did not feel that they were ready for marriage. Their engagement was on and off. The priest gave him books and felt that he had failed somehow getting him to maturity. He was incapable of gut communication. The priest suggested that he go and see a Fr. C., O.F.M., Psychotherapist. The priest was very worried about his immaturity and about the nature of their relationship and the uncertainty which surrounded it. He married them in February, 1982. He was very unhappy. He felt he could not stop them. He wanted to maintain his friendship with both parties. He felt that if he intervened or refused to marry them they would merely go to another priest. He might have lost their friendship. He was much more anxious about them than he was about other marriages he had performed. Indeed, at their cermony he asked prayers for their future from the entire congregation. Thereafter he had infrequent contacts with both of them but felt that the Petitioner was less equal in the relationship than the Respondent. He was not surprised at their separation because he knew the relationship was not good. He felt that the Petitioner had not arrived at a stage where he could give the full commitment necessary for marriage. When he met the Petitioner he was only 15 years of age. His brothers and sisters were very much older. He came to see the priest about his home problems. He was always trying to please his mother and not succeeding. His father was irascible, particularly because of the presence of the dominant brother-in-law Parish Priest. In the Youth Club the Petitioner did not relate well to his peers. He was academic and not keen on football. He was not robust. He did not have school difficulties. He was interested in politics and in books and general affairs, much more so than his peers. He was very serious. When he went to U.C.D. he was happier. He was always under pressure from home to achieve. In Dublin he seemed to mix better with his peers but had not arrived at a level of self-possession and security. He could have suffered from an inability to communicate with his peers. He had poor self esteem. The umbilical cord was not broken. Guilt was a feature of his behaviour. His whole self esteem was damaged by his family situation. After marriage he told the priest that he was not really ready for marriage. His wife was a crutch who was very much more mature than he was. In the area of commitment he was indecisive. After qualification he was not able to function as his age group should function. The priest has been in much contact with him over the last three years. He is now much happier and has a good relationship and a child by another woman. He seems to be functioning much better.

8 His affair began in 1977 and he got engaged in 1979. His mother told the priest (as he had expected) that she did not approve. The priest felt he had made a wrong judgment in not recommending postponing the marriage. He knew that the Petitioner was infatuated with the Respondent in many ways. They had shared common interests but if you get beyond that it is a good social relationship but is not a commitment. The Petitioner was incapable of love at that time.

9 There were various letters between the parties produced to the Court. The priest expressed the view that a letter from the Petitioner to the Respondent was expressing friendship and he thought it corroborated his evidence. One letter was described as "the most unromantic love letter I have ever read" by the priest. He agreed that there was some sign of growth in the correspondence but that it was not significant. He was trying to come to terms with his emotional problems in these letters. He never broke away from home. He never rebelled. His need for a crutch was unconscious.

10 Dr. B., Pshychiatrist, had prepared a report for the Court based on interviews on the 17th of April, June 5th and June 26th, 1991 and April 20th, 1993 for a total of 7 hours. He had also interviewed the Repondent on the 11th of May, the 18th of May, the 23rd of July, the 10th of August and the 31st of August for a total of 8 hours. He had a letter from Fr. G., a friend of both parties. He had also had telephone consultation with Fr. C. whom the Petitioner had consulted for psychotherapy. He believed that the Respondent initiated the relationship between them. The courtship was long and problematical. They were engaged to be married on two occasions, once formally in 1979 and the second time informally in 1980. The first engagement was broken off because the Petitioner did not have a strong desire to marry, whereas the Respondent did. The Petitioner had frequently thought of ending the relationship but each time he tried to do so the Respondent would dissuade him. He was physically attracted to her and he appreciated the support and encouragement she gave him in his difficult relationship with his mother. He knew he was not in love with her. He rationalized this by saying there was too much emphasis on romantic love. He married her because he could not think of any good reason why he should not. The Respondent was aware of this ambivalence and confronted him. She told him that he should not be triffling with her emotions particularly since she was older than he was and that her biological clock was ticking over. After they had broken off the relationship and she went to America he phoned her. He contacted her mother.

11 On her return he met her at the airport. She...