A WOMAN who did not know that her husband, a former priest had psychiatric help before they were married had her marriage declared null and void by the Supreme Court yesterday.
The court held that "great weight" had to be attached to her not knowing her husband received psychiatric help for six years while waiting for his laicisation to be completed.
The woman, who married in 1985, appealed against a High Court decision refusing to grant nullity. The couple have two children but since Christmas 1989 has been virtually separated.
At the time of the marriage, the husband was aged 37 and the wife 32. He was ordained in 1972, worked for four years as a curate, but found life difficult and decided he had been mistaken in his vocation. He attended a psychiatrist from 1976 to 1982 during this difficult period while his laicisation was completed.
Mr Justice Blayney, in the Supreme Court yesterday, said what the court had to consider was whether the wife's consent was an "informed consent".
He said the High Court judge found the wife gave a full, free and informed consent to the marriage but did not point to particular findings to support this conclusion.
In the High Court the wife had stated she was "completely stunned" when she heard her husband attended a psychiatrist for six years. She had added that looking back, it explained a lot that was previously unexplained. Had she been aware she certainly would not have married him because in "those kinds of psychiatric illnesses, you get remission but you never get a cure".
Mr Justice Blayney said the issue was whether this was a relevant circumstance in that the failure to disclose it meant the wife did not have adequate knowledge so that her consent lacked the quality of an informed consent. The answer must be that it was relevant.
The test was subjective, said the judge. Because of this, great weight must be attached to the wife's evidence that had she known her husband had attended a psychiatrist for six years, she would not have married him.
Apart altogether from any question of psychiatric illness and there was no evidence the husband had ever suffered such an illness - a person's mental health or mental stability was obviously a matter of great importance and anything which might throw doubt on it called for serious consideration. Because of this, the husband ought to have told the wife he had attended a psychiatrist.