THE HIGH COURT
MATRIMONIAL
		1995 No. 78m
BETWEEN

P. M
		PETITIONER
AND
T. R. (FALSELY CALLED M.)
		RESPONDENT

Judgment of Mr. Justice Lavan delivered the 18th day of February, 1998.

	The Petitioner is a 37 year old farmer living in the County of Mayo.
	On the 24th day of May, 1992 he went through a ceremony of marriage with the Respondent according to the rights of the Roman Catholic Church at the Irish College in Rome, Italy.  At the time of the ceremony of marriage the Petitioner and Respondent were and still are citizens of Ireland.  Both were domiciled within the State.  Following the marriage the parties lived and co-habited at a number of locations in the west of Ireland.  The Petitioner is 37 years, having been born on the 21st October, 1960.  There are two children of the marriage, namely, D. who was born on the 12th July, 1992, and C. who was born on the 9th May, 1994.  
	In his petition, the Petitioner claims that neither he nor the Respondent gave a full, free and informed consent to the marriage and further that both parties lacked the capacity to form and sustain a valid functional life-long marital relationship with each other by reason of their respective states of mind, mental conditions, emotional and psychological developments at the date of their purported marriage.
	In those circumstances, the Petitioner prays for a decree that the marriage between the parties be declared null and void.
	The Respondent represented herself at the hearing of this case.  Her answer to the petition was in the following terms:-
	In answer to the petition presented to the Central Office on December 14th, 1995 the Petitioner stated that he lacked the capacity to form and sustain a valid functional life-long marital relationship by reason of his state of mind, mental conditions, emotional and psychological developments at the date of the purported marriage.  Having suffered great physical, emotional and psychological abuse from the Petitioner both during and after my marriage, I can say that from my knowledge of the Petitioner I give answer and say that I am in agreement with this Statement.
	The Petitioner presumably had suffered from a psychiatric disorder which has impaired his ability to form and sustain a normal viable marriage and has a standard of proof documenting evidence to support this Statement from expert opinion.  I have failed for my part to determine the nature of this psychiatric disorder by requesting particulars on four separate occasions which were refused to me and therefore my answer to the Courts has to remain a personal opinion.
	For my part I have spoken and written to all doctors and other professional sources both current and those I have known since I was born and have been unable to obtain any contrary opinion in regard to my health, mental or physical, other than that, in their opinion I have and always had sound mental and physical health.  I have omitted seeking an opinion from Mr. E. M., Psychologist who supported and encouraged me to leave my husband during my second pregnancy and whom I considered to have acted unprofessionally
in supporting my husband after I left the marriage which I conveyed by making a complaint in 1995 to the Society of which he is a member.  
	In answer to the Petitioner I say that I am in disagreement with all the other petitions made by the Petitioner in his petition presented to the Central Office on the 14th December, 1995.  
	This answer was dated the 28th November, 1997 and signed by the Respondent.
	The essential feature of this case is whether the failure of one spouse to declare their correct age to the other can be said to vitiate the consent given by that other.
	As to the evidence:
	I first heard from the Petitioner's mother who was called to set a basis for inviting the Court to consider that the Petitioner had a special relationship with a foster brother whilst he was young.  This foster brother died tragically seventeen years ago.  This witness gave evidence of the family background and of the Petitioner's friendship with one J.C. who was a neighbour's child.  There was a fourteen year difference in age between the parties.  The witness was highly critical of the Respondent and made it perfectly clear in the witness box that she did not like the Respondent.  The first the mother heard about the proposed wedding was shortly before the parties left for Rome. 
	The Petitioner himself gave evidence.  He is now 37 years of age.  At school he had a stammer due to the unkindness of his teacher for a period of three years.  
	He always worked on the farm as a schoolboy and at 19 years of age he took full control of same and it is fair to say that he developed it in a very progressive form and now farms extensively.  He ceased going out with J.C. in July 1991.  She had lived with her mother and marriage would have meant that the Respondent would have had to  move in with both.  
	On the 3rd March, 1991 he met the Respondent in a night-club.  She was domineering to him and he admired this quality very much in her.  He found her very courageous.  He met her again two weeks later.  She was living in Dublin, he remained on the farm.  They met fortnightly until July of 1991 when she began to travel down from Dublin and would spend two nights at the weekend with him.  The relationship developed quickly and about that time it became intimate.  Both parties visited the Respondent's family in the South. 
	He stated that from Christmas 1991 the Respondent was pressuring him into marriage.  At that time he decided to finish his relationship with the Respondent but she then told him that she was pregnant.
	The intent of the Petitioner's evidence up to the date of marriage was that the Respondent was the driving force.  I have major reservations as to this being the case.  In any event, the appropriate letters of freedom were obtained from the respective parish priest on the 11th May, 1992.  He understood that the Respondent had bought the rings for the marriage and had arranged that the wedding would take place in Rome.
	The Petitioner led me to believe that he knew very little about the arrangements for the marriage, that it was to take place in Italy which I found somewhat suspect, having regard to his age (he was then 31 years of age) and having regard to the fact that he played rugby at weekends and was an experienced man of the world.  In any event, the parties flew out to Rome on or about the 22nd May, 1992.  The marriage was to take place in the Irish College.  The celebrant was Fr. B. McC.  The ceremony took place at 5.00 p.m. and there were five couples.  Afterwards the parties repaired for refreshments in the course of which the celebrant required the parties to sign the appropriate marriage register.
	In the course of signing the register the Petitioner discovered that the Respondent was 36 years of age.  The best that can be said for the Petitioner's state of knowledge up to this time was that he may have believed her to be younger than him but I am satisfied as a fact that this position was never adopted by the Respondent.  Nor was it, in fact, of concern prior to that time.  There is no doubt that the Petitioner reacted when he discovered his spouse's real age.  	
	When the parties left the Irish College, the Petitioner was greatly upset.  The parties discussed the issue that Monday evening and during the early hours of Tuesday morning.  The Respondent had suggested to the Petitioner that he should not consummate the marriage if he had any reservations about proceeding with the ceremony.  The Respondent then telephoned the Irish College, spoke with Fr. McC. who arranged to see both parties on the Tuesday morning.  The priest saw each party for one hour and both of them for a third hour.  He fully explained the implications of marriage and what it entailed.  He was Director of Formation at the Irish College at the time.  He gave evidence in this case.  I accept his evidence in full.  I accept that the Petitioner was fully advised in relation to his position at that time, that is to say, before he consummated the marriage.  The priest explained the procedure available for nullifying the marriage without consummation and made clear to the Petitioner that he had a free choice in the matter.
	I accept that following this discussion both parties repaired to the grounds of the college, discussed the matter and agreed to proceed to consummate the marriage.
	I am satisfied on the evidence that I have heard that the Respondent did not pressurise the Petitioner at any time during these days.  On the contrary, I am satisfied that at all times she urged caution.  
	Having spent Tuesday in the company of the priest aforesaid and having further discussed the matter, the parties decided to consummate the marriage. The Respondent was pregnant at this time and the first of their two children was then born on the 12th July, 1992. 
	The evidence in relation to the post-marriage ceremony is an unhappy one and the parties cohabited for some two years and ten months and have lived separate and apart since then.
	Having heard from Fr. B. McC., I also heard from the Petitioner's brother and from Dr. Art O'Connor.  Dr. O'Connor saw both parties and prepared a report on each party.  
	In relation to the Petitioner he concludes that it seems probable that (the Respondent) was such that she was unable to enter this relationship and the pregnancy must have complicated things.  She denies an alcohol problem which he feels was an issue.  It seems that the relationship never got started and both parties were totally incompatible because of personality difficulties.  It is very clear from both of their accounts that Mr. M. did not want to marry and he felt unable to withstand pressure from various sources.  
	In relation to the report on the Petitioner, his account is of the Respondent being deceitful.  The report concludes that from the Petitioner's account it seems likely that the marriage was doomed from the beginning.  Throughout the marriage there was no real relationship and neither party seems to have entered the marriage properly.  He seems to have been quite immature in his thinking and he was pressurised into making a decision he did not want to make by the pregnancy, the force of her personality and his pre-occupation about his foster brother's early life.  From his account she seems to have forced the situation and almost bullied him into marrying her.  She seems to have had serious defects in her personality and has been quite manipulative and also deceitful.
	The Respondent gave evidence herself.  I accept her evidence in full.  Her mother and father also gave evidence and I accept them as honest and truthful in their accounts.
	From the evidence given in Court I do not accept Dr. O'Connor's conclusions.  What the Consultant appears to have done has been to accept one party's version of events and form an opinion on foot of same.
	I am satisfied that the Petitioner failed to give an accurate account of the pre-marriage history, failed to disclose his attendance at a pre-marriage guidance course, failed until the end of the case to indicate that he had the documents belonging to the Respondent from that course which he had furnished to his Solicitors and then purported to say that he did not know where his papers were from that course.  I do not accept his explanation as to his being in ignorance of the marriage plans.  He failed to tell me about visiting the Respondent's parents and she receiving her dowry of £6,000.00.  I found that he was generally an unreliable witness.
	From the Respondent's evidence I am satisfied that the parties had a strong relationship from the time they first met and he proposed to her in October of 1991.
	Contrary to Dr. O'Connor's view, I do not see the Respondent as being in any way deceitful, manipulative or having any defects whatsoever in her personality.  I found her to be a warm, sensitive intelligent person.  As to the intent of her answer, I accept her explanation as given to Counsel for the Applicant.  She comes from a caring professional family from the South.  Both parents were exemplary witnesses.  Nor do I accept that the Respondent bullied the Petitioner into marriage.  Finally, I heard from Ms. J.C. who was a compelling witness and whose evidence I accept in full.
	The onus of establishing lack of consent lies upon the Petitioner.  He and his mother lacked a certain candour in their evidence and his evidence was misleading in my view as to the reality of the relationship from October 1991 when the parties got engaged to the date of the marriage and thereafter.  
	At the date of marriage he was 31 and the Respondent was 36.  I accept that great reliance was placed on his relationship with his foster brother but do not accept that this in any way compelled him to proceed with the marriage.
	Counsel for the Petitioner relied upon the decisions of N. (Otherwise K.) -v- K., [1985] IR 733 at 742.  On M.O'M. (Otherwise O'C.) -v- B.O'C., [1996] 1 IR 208.  A.C. -v- P.J., (unreported 23rd February, 1995), D.B. -v- O.R., [1991] ILRM 160 and M.K. -v- F. McC., [1982] 1 ILRM.
	Having carefully considered the authorities, I am satisfied that the Petitioner has not carried the burden of proof of showing that there was an absence of consent.  On the facts as found by me, I am satisfied the consent was full, free and informed.
	Likewise, in relation to the grounds of inability to enter into and sustain a normal marital relationship due to immaturity, I am satisfied that both of these people were mature at the time the ceremony of marriage took place.  The Petitioner was a 31 year old successful farmer, playing rugby for a club, very much a man of the world and I am unable to conclude that he suffered from any disability on the date of the marriage.  Likewise, in relation to the Respondent.  In the circumstances I refuse the decree of nullity.
SIGNED:	_______________
       	VIVIAN LAVAN

Dated the  18th day of February, 1998.