THE HIGH COURT
MATRIMONIAL
			1994 90M
BETWEEN
D.K.
			PETITIONER
AND
T.H. OTHERWISE KNOWN AS T.K.
			RESPONDENT

JUDGMENT of Mr. Justice O'Higgins delivered the 25th day of  February 1998.

	The Petitioner and the Respondent went through a marriage ceremony in Dublin on the 10th August, 1990 according to the rites of the Roman Catholic Church.
	The Petitioner seeks a decree that the said marriage ceremony was null and void and of no legal effect.  by Order of the Master the issues to be tried were settled as set out in that Order.  At the hearing the Petitioner has abandoned grounds 1 and 2 as set out in that Order and relies on the following grounds which were the issues set out at 3 and 4 of the Order as follows:

3.	Whether at the date of the purported marriage ceremony the Petitioner had the capacity to enter into a normal functional lifelong marriage with the Respondent due to his state of mind and mental condition, emotional development and personality?
 4.	Whether at the date of purported marriage ceremony the Respondent had the capacity to enter into a normal functional lifelong marriage with the Petitioner due to her state of mind, mental conditions, emotional development and personality?

	In addition I gave leave for an extra issue to be tried, namely, as to whether the Petitioner and the Respondent lacked the capacity to enter and sustain a normal lifelong functional relationship with each other by reason of their respective states of mind, mental condition, emotional development and personality.
	The following facts have been proved or admitted in evidence:

(A)	There is no collusion between the parties and the court is satisfied that this is a bona fide application.
(B)	The Petitioner was born on the 3rd May, 1968.
(C)	When he was about twelve years old the Petitioner was sexually abused by a priest over a protracted period of time.
(D)	The Petitioner's father to whom he was very attached died when the Petitioner was fourteen years old 
(E)	The Petitioner's mother remarried about a year later.
(F)	There was considerable friction between the Petitioner and his stepfather and the Petitioner left home when he was about eighteen due to the disharmony at home.

	The Petitioner, as a teenager, was given to sniffing gas lighter fuel, petrol fumes, Tippex and glue and he later abandoned these substances but used cannabis.  
	The Petitioner met the Respondent who was then aged fourteen while she was still at school.  They formed a relationship and lived first with the Respondent's mother and then in a flat in Ballymun.  The couple then went to London where the Respondent became pregnant.  The parties then returned to Ireland.  The first child 'CK' was born on 
8th February, 1989 and a second child 'GK' was born on the 29th December, 1989.  
	In or around that time the Petitioner became interested in the Jehovah's Witnesses and wished to become a member.  He was told that to comply with the rules of the Jehovah's Witness it was not permissible to live with the Respondent in an unmarried state and that he should either marry or abandon the relationship. 
	The Petitioner had considerable doubts about going ahead with the marriage and was very confused and unsure.  He was as he described it "mentally all over the place".  He wanted to please everybody.
	In July 1991 the Petitioner was baptised into the Jehovah's Witnesses.  The Respondent was not happy with this situation.  Neither was she happy that he was no longer prepared to sign on for Social Welfare at a time when he was working.  Things went "drastically downhill".  The Petitioner was asked to leave home six months into the marriage and he left for some time to stay with his sister.  He later returned.  On his return things were very violent and the Petitioner claims he was assaulted on a number occasions.  
	Dr. Art O'Connor, the psychiatrist, gave evidence that, because of the following factors, namely

(a)	child sexual abuse by a person in authority,
(b)	the death of his father,
(c)	the remarriage of his mother,
(d)	the domestic disharmony between the Petitioner and his stepfather, and
(e)	the damage done by drug taking and their combined effect on his pychological and emotional status,
the Petitioner was unable to understand the nature and consequence of a long term marriage relationship and had not got the capacity to enter into such a relationship at the relevant date.
	I have been referred to the following cases D. -v- C. 1984 ILRM;    B. -v- N. judgment of Barrington J. 27th March, 1987;    P.C. -v- V.C. 1992 Irish Reports and F. -v- C. 1991 ILRM.  It appears from those cases that there can be psychological and emotional factors which so effect a person as to make that person incapable of entering into a valid marriage.  In the present case because of the cumulative effect of the factors outlined by Dr. Art O'Connor the psychiatrist and mentioned in evidence by the Petitioner himself I have no doubt that he was in such an emotional and psychological state as to be quite incapable of entering into a marriage relationship.  Having answered question 3 as I have, it is not necessary to answer the other questions.
	I wish to add the following.  There was evidence of opinion given by the psychiatrist as to the psychological and emotional state of the Respondent and of her capacity to enter a valid marital relationship.  This evidence was based on an interview with the Petitioner only, as the psychiatrist did not have an opportunity to examine the Respondent.  In general, expert opinion based on information supplied by the Petitioner only, and without examination of the Respondent, is of limited value only, and is far less satisfactory than opinion given following examination of the party concerned.  In so saying, I intend no criticism whatsoever of the distinguished psychiatrist in the present case.