A judge has annulled an 11-year marriage which started on the wrong foot when the husband took his “intimate” male friend on his honeymoon and let him share a room.
Mr Justice Anthony Vella ruled that the marriage had missing elements, mainly the maturity of the man who underestimated the meaning of the bond he was undertaking.
The court heard that the man and woman tied the knot in 2007 but postponed their honeymoon to the following year.
But two days before the flight to Corfu, the man informed his wife that his “intimate friend” was joining them.
Little did she know that her husband had booked a triple room and that the friend would be tailing them night and day.
During the honeymoon, the man told her that he loved his friend and that is when she started to doubt his sexual orientation.
However, there were other things that bothered her during the 11 years they spent married.
She told the court that her husband expected her to be his maid, both during the marriage and even after they had separated.
He expected her to cook and wash at the new house he was sharing with his male friend. She refused this arrangement.
Apart from this, she said her husband was detached, both emotionally and romantically, and refused to contribute, including financially, towards the household.
He expected her to cook and wash at the new house he was sharing with his male friend
Before the wedding, he had refused to pay for the wedding rings and he only paid for the wedding cars and the filming.
She told the court that the man married her for her money and had always refused to tell her anything about his financial situation.
The court heard that the woman became pregnant twice but the man refused to accompany her on visits to the doctor, including when she had miscarriages and when she needed to go to hospital for surgery. She had to drive to hospital, accompanied by her mother.
She told the Family Court that he often went out alone, leaving her at home doing chores.
In court, the man simply denied his estranged wife’s allegation that he had fooled her into marriage but did not offer any other explanation.
The court heard a representative from Appoġġ testify that the couple’s application to adopt a child was turned down when the man refused to attend family therapy sessions and when it became evident he was looking at the adoption as a “financial investment”.
It also resulted that the man had been exposed to domestic violence during his childhood.
Handing down his judgment, Mr Justice Vella said it was evident that the marriage was “vitiated” due to an error of judgment, especially since the man did not want commitments. The court described as “unjustifiable” the fact that the male friend accompanied them on their honeymoon but did not delve into whether the man was gay or bisexual.
The marriage deserved to be annulled, the court said.