Ever since the introduction of the law of divorce in our legislative framework  in 2011, the Maltese courts have witnessed a steady surge in the number of cases for personal separation and divorce. As the figures provided in parliament last month show, the year 2023 saw the  Family Court pronounce 483 divorce judgments along with 110 judgments of personal separation.

Whilst the above figures are quite considerable, not much is said about marriage civil annulment cases, judgments on which are still pronounced.

Prior to delving into a recent one pronounced by our courts, it is apt to consider the distinctions between marriage annulment, personal separation, and divorce. While all three involve a termination of the spouses’ marital relationship, each is different from the other.

By means of a judgment pronouncing personal separation, married spouses would be freed from their reciprocal obligations; namely, the termination of the spouses’ duty to live together. A judgment of personal separation also means that the community of acquests between the spouses would be terminated and both parties would, from the date of the judgment, reacquire their own individual status for entering into acts of a civil nature without the necessity of the appearance and consent of the other spouse. Each party would be considered from thereon a free individual.

However, saying that a personal separation brings about the termination of one’s marriage is a complete misnomer. Following a judgment of personal separation neither of the spouses may civilly remarry unless a divorce judgment is attained. Divorce is what brings about the dissolution of a marriage.

The effects of an annulment are perhaps more wide-ranging than those of a personal separation or divorce. Whilst a judgment pronouncing the latter would have effect from the date of the judgment as pronounced by the Family Court or Court of Appeal, in the case of an annulment the marriage would be deemed to have never existed in the first place.

When a case for civil annulment is filed before the Family Court, the court’s tasks are different to those in a personal separation or divorce. The crux of the whole case would be to determine whether either one or more requisites essential to enter into marriage were missing when the marriage was contracted. If the court finds either one or more requisites are absent, the marriage would be declared to have never existed right from the start.

A civil annulment was pronounced by the Civil Court, Family Section, on  January 22 in the names of DB vs Dr Martha Mifsud et noe. As can be noted from the case name, the defendant spouse was absent in these proceedings and hence had to be represented by curators.

The facts of the case were as follows. During 2014, the plaintiff met the defendant whilst the latter was studying English in Malta. When the defendant finished her studies, she returned to her home country, and both parties stayed in touch. The plaintiff travelled to visit the defendant and they agreed that the defendant would return to Malta so that both could start living together.

After a few months, the defendant found out that she was expecting. Halfway through her pregnancy, the defendant abruptly decided that she wanted to return to her home country so that she could give birth surrounded by her family and according to her family’s traditions.

The plaintiff insisted that they get married so that their child would not be born out of wedlock. On April 18, 2016, whilst in her home country, the defendant filed an application for marriage without the plaintiff’s consent, presence, or signature. In August 2016, whilst the plaintiff was physically present in the country ahead of the birth of their son, the defendant took him to a town hall centre where he had to sign three documents in a foreign language. He was threatened that unless he filed the documents, he would be denied access to his child. The plaintiff complied.

As the parties left the town hall centre, the defendant told him that they were now married and that they had gotten married in April.

Following the child’s birth, whilst the plaintiff was back in Malta, the defendant informed him that she was not going to return to Malta as they had originally intended and that if the defendant wanted a relationship with his son, he had to return to her home country. He complied.

The relationship continued to deteriorate even more. The defendant started to allege that the plaintiff was going to flee the country with the child and that she was a victim of domestic violence.

Their relationship ended once and for all when the defendant left the home and could not be found or contacted ever since.

The plaintiff proceeded before the Family Section of the Civil Court wherein he requested the annulment of his marriage with the defendant due to the fact that his consent was obtained through physical and moral violence, or fear (according to Article 19(1)(a) of the Marriage Act, Chapter 255 of the Laws of Malta). He also alleged that the parties’ consent was 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 (according to Article 19(1)(f) of the Marriage Act, Chapter 255 of the Laws of Malta).

In her considerations, Madame Justice Jacqueline Padovani Grima remarked that the institute of marriage is regulated by a presumption of validity, and it is only upon the production of concrete and convincing proof that a marriage can be declared to be invalid. Marriage is one of the most essential contracts in society, and nullity is the exception and definitely not the rule. Thus, the person alleging that his/her marriage was invalid and should be declared null bore the onus probandi.

Delving into the first reason for annulment proposed by the plaintiff, namely that his consent was obtained through physical and moral violence or fear, the court said that for this plea to be upheld, the violence or pressure that was exerted must be such that it reflected and influenced the person’s mental condition to the extent that the person would not be in a free position to choose or give his/her say; and in an attempt to avoid damage being caused, that person chose to do what the other demanded. In this case, the plaintiff himself testified and admitted that he never wanted to get married and that the defendant was well aware of this from the way she disguised and kept the marriage application secret when she took him to the town hall. The court observed how it was the plaintiff’s fear of not seeing his son that forced him into marrying the defendant.

Accounting for the facts of the case, and the fearful circumstances in which the plaintiff found himself, the court acceded to his request for annulment and made a very strong pronouncement to this effect. It declared that:

"The court finds that the plaintiff was not free in his choice to marry, and his decision was only the result of extreme pressure made on him by the defendant who, because her cultural values allegedly did not allow her to have a child out of wedlock, imposed marriage on the plaintiff, knowing he would do anything to be present in his son's life.

"The baby was the only reason that led the plaintiff to take this step, an action he did not take voluntarily but only after the strong pressure of the defendant and his fear of being excluded from the life of his son." 

The judgment may still be appealed.