Content area
Full Text
Decision coram PINTO, 24 March 2000 (Ireland)1
I - THE FACTS
1 - Patricia, a legal secretary, 21 years of age, and Daniel, an automobile workshop owner, then 25 years old, came to know each other in February 1980.
At the initiative of the man, the two young people quickly started courting and engaged in full sexual intercourse. The first time this occurred was at Easter. Patricia did not enjoy the experience so she ended her relationship with Daniel and left him.
It is not clear from the acts how and when the couple renewed their relationship; it is clear, however, that their relationship was full of difficulties, not the least was the unexpected pregnancy of the woman. For this reason they decided to marry, which was hastened both by the death of the respondent's mother and by the difficulty the petitioner was having in continuing to live with her father. The marriage was celebrated on 4 October 1980 in their village church.
2 - Notwithstanding the birth of their daughter, common life turned difficult immediately thereafter due to fault on both sides, but especially because Daniel neglected his wife on account of his work.
The quarrels became intolerable and a final separation took place at the beginning of 1982. This became legal in August of the same year.
Six years later, on 15 September 1988, the petitioner submitted her petition to the Regional Tribunal of A. On the same day she also provided an extrajudicial deposition in which she accused her marriage of invalidity on the grounds of a defect of discretion of judgement on the part of both parties, of exclusion of the good of the sacrament [indissolubility] and of the good of children on the part of petitioner and force and fear inflicted on her by her parents.
By the decree dated 4 May 1989, the tribunal rejected the petition. The Appeal Tribunal accepted it on 8 August 1990. The doubt was, therefore, formulated on 3 September 1990 in accordance with the petition.
The case was instructed and, on 20 November 1992, a negative decision was pronounced regarding the ground of defect of discretion of judgement in both parties only, without any reference to the other grounds which had been duly alleged.