A Maltese man has been granted an annulment by the Court, after it concluded that his wife had married him with the sole intention of acquiring some money.
The Court heard the man state in evidence that he had met his wife in the year 2000, and after a year’s relationship she became pregnant. The man was pleased with the child as he was happy in the relationship, but when the baby had been born, he had had to spend nine months working abroad.
The man further testified that when he came back to Malta, it had taken him a year to find employment again, and in the meantime he had done up a place owned by his parents in Vittoriosa, and they had gone to live there as a family. In time he started working, and his partner used to get social benefits and started in casual employment when their son was two years old.
They started arguing, as the wife wanted to continue enjoying herself just as in the time when they were still childless, whereas he wished them to spend more time with their son. Another child was born to them in 2008, but the mother remained of the same opinion.
The man stated that the Vittoriosa home was too small for four persons, and he finally managed to convince his partner to start in permanent employment so that they could jointly purchase a property in Xghajra. In order to be able to take this step, the man had been given the down payment by his parents.
The man insisted that it was only after he had signed the promise of sale that the mother of his children started putting pressure on him to get married, telling him that unless they got married, she would not sit on the contract. For this reson he accepted, and they quickly contracted a civil marriage.
The man reiterated that his wife still did not change her attitude regarding entertainment, and he found out after three months that she was having a relationship with another man.
The Court, Madam Justice Abigail Lofaro presiding, considered that the woman had not presented any replies to her husband’s allegations, and for this reason it had to rely on them.
In considering the whole scenario, the Court concluded that the wife had only entered into marriage so that when they separated, she would be entitled to half the deposit on the property.
The Court was of the opinion that the woman’s consent was not a valid one, and for this reason the marriage had to be annulled.