A court yesterday decided not to issue the marriage banns within the next 40 days for a gender reassigned woman, who was born a man but was legally declared a woman following surgery.

The court, presided over by Mr Justice Joseph R. Micallef, proclaimed its decision after an appeal was filed by the director of the Public Registry.

The director had requested the reversal of a court decree that had ordered marriage banns to be issued in favour of the transsexual and her male partner.

In his ruling, Mr Justice Micallef said that holding the marriage banns for 40 days was to ensure that the interests of both parties involved would not be compromised in any way.

Mr Justice Gino Camilleri had ordered the director of Public Registry on 12 February to issue the marriage banns as he noted that the marriage did not contravene any provision of the Marriage Act.

However, on 28 February – a week later – the director of Public Registry filed an application requesting the reversal of the court decree permitting the marriage banns to be issued.

The director, who was acting in his capacity as Registrar of Marriages, claimed that the change in the Act of Birth of the woman – involving a change of name and gender – simply avoided any embarrassment and protected the right to privacy of the person involved.

He explained that this should not mean that the person is to be considered a female for the purpose of marriage because the surgery is cosmetic and that she is still, essentially, a man.

The director filed an urgent application last week saying that the woman’s lawyers went to the Public Registry on 1 March and insisted, even through a legal letter, to fix an appointment for their client to apply for the marriage banns to be issued.

As a result, the registry had to set the date to 7 March.

The director pointed out, in his urgent application, that if he was forced to issue the marriage banns, the request for the revocation of the judgment allowing the marriage banns to be issued filed on 28 February will be “irremediably prejudiced.”

As a result, he said, he filed the urgent application requesting the court to authorise him not to issue the marriage banns until the original application was decided upon.

Mr Justice Micallef upheld the appeal saying it was wise not to do anything that could prejudice the case of either party.