This was an appeal from a judgement delivered by the Civil Court (Family Section) on 16 January 2009 whereby the Court declared null the civil marriage of X and Y.

The facts of the case were as follows:

The civil marriage between the parties took place on 12 September 2000 from which marriage no children were born.

In his sworn application, the Plaintiff X had claimed that the parties had given their consent to the marriage, however such consent was vitiated by the positive exclusion of marriage itself, or of any of the essential elements of matrimonial life, or of the right to the conjugal act and such consent was so given with a fraudulent intention. X furthermore held that the consent of the parties was vitiated by a serious defect of discretion of judgment on the matrimonial life, or on its essential rights and duties, or by a serious psychological anomaly which made it impossible to fulfil the essential obligations of marriage. On this basis, the Plaintiff X had requested the Court to declare the marriage null and without effect.

In her reply, his wife, the Defendant Y, claimed that X’s request was unfounded in fact and in law and that such request be therefore denied subject to the payment of all fees and costs by the Plaintiff X.

The Civil Court (Family Section) heard all the evidence and considered all the alleged facts of the case. It heard how the parties had met when X had replied to an advertisement in a local newspaper wherein an agency was introducing Maltese men to foreign women with the intention of marriage. X eventually received an email from a Ukrainian agency, paid a sum of money and went to Ukraine with his mother. On his arrival, he was introduced to the Defendant Y, however, communication was a problem due to the language barrier.

X decided to marry Y because he claimed he thought he loved her. Due to problems relating to her obtaining a visa, he decided to marry her within three months of their first meeting. The marriage was quickly in trouble since the Defendant allegedly acted strangely, fought with their neighbours and also hit the Plaintiff X.

The Defendant Y claimed that they had married because they truly loved each other and intended to have a family together. She claimed that it was her mother-in-law that was the cause of the problems in their marriage.

It was noted that marriage as a matter of public order could not be simply annulled by one of the parties quoting one of the grounds for annulment contemplated by the Marriage Act and the other party admitting to such ground thereby effecting such an annulment very easily and expeditiously. Marriage is a matter unlike the establishment of liability and the liquidation of damages in a collision case. Marriage is a matter of a more delicate and serious nature and therefore Courts cannot permit spouses to capriciously, after some time being married, suddenly decide that there was a a serious defect of discretion of judgment on the matrimonial life, only to some time after, upon meeting someone else, suddenly acquire such discretion and maturity. Annulment is not a mechanism to be exploited by spouses to accommodate any reason or excuse as to why a marriage should terminate.

The Court considered the grounds in Articles 19(1)(d) and (f) which grounds X had referred to:

19. (1) In addition to the cases in which a marriage is void in accordance with any other provision of this Act, a marriage shall be void:

(d) if the consent of either of the parties is vitiated by a serious defect of discretion of judgment on the matrimonial life, or on its essential rights and duties, or by a serious psychological anomaly which makes it impossible for that party to fulfil the essential obligations of marriage;

(f) if the consent of either of the parties is vitiated by the positive exclusion of marriage itself, or of any one or more of the essential elements of matrimonial life, or of the right to the conjugal act;

The Court referred to a series of Maltese judgements wherein the above articles were interpreted clearly and also referred to Canon Law. Among other things, the Court stated that it was evident that X was an individual who was incapable of starting a normal relationship with a woman and it was for this reason that he resorted to contacting the dating agency to be put in contact with a foreign woman. The Court was convinced that while X probably did love Y since she was the only woman he had ever been in contact with apart from his female family members, Y on the other hand certainly did not love X and had simply grabbed the opportunity to leave her country and her living conditions.

The Court proceeded to rule in favour of the Plaintiff X and declared the marriage of the parties to be null and without effect in terms of Article 19(1)(d) and (f) of the Marriage Act (Chapter 255 – Laws of Malta) which contemplate the grounds for annulment claimed by the Plaintiff.

The Defendant Y filed an appeal from the above judgement requesting that it be reversed on the basis that there was absolutely no proof that the marriage was indeed null and particularly since the consent and intention of the parties had to be examined at the time the marriage was contracted and whatever happened before and after was merely indicative of the intentions of the parties. She also claimed that the fact couples meet through a dating agency and eventually get married does not render the marriage null.

The Court of Appeal held that the Court of First Instance had erroneously been impressed by the Plaintiff when he was cross examined. The Court of Appeal held that the fact that a person finds a spouse by virtue of a dating agency, does not (even if this may be indicative of the fact that such person is incapable of initiating a normal relationship) necessarily mean that at the time the marriage is contracted such person was incapable of comprehending or giving a free consent. Furthermore, the Court continued that although it was possible that X and Y lacked discretion of judgment on the matrimonial life, this had to be proved on a balance of probabilities as is required in civil cases. The fact that the parties had lived together for a number of years and had clearly also made genuine efforts to try and have children and establish the matrimonial home further weakened the claim. The Court of Appeal also considered the fact that the Plaintiff admitted that his parents had initiated the annulment procedure and that his mother had interfered and alleged that the couple could not have children because of something that happened in Y’s past that she had concealed from the Plaintiff X. The Court of Appeal also found that the Civil Court’s statement that the Defendant Y had married for convenience and to escape her living conditions in Ukraine was unfounded particularly since such alleged living conditions at the time of the marriage were never proved.

The Court of Appeal, on the basis of its considerations including those outlined above, upheld the Defendant Y’s appeal and reversed the judgement of the Civil Court (Family Section).