Justice Evrol Mariette Peters said a petition for nullity cannot be used to secure a “quickie” divorce.

Peters, however, said she would not go so far as to state that the petition constituted an abuse of the process of court.

“Both petitioners were of sound mind and above the age of majority when they registered their marriage. They should realise that registration renders a marriage valid and has legal consequences.

“After careful scrutiny and judicious consideration of the affidavit evidence before this court, this petition is dismissed,” the judge ruled in a written judgment delivered recently.

FMT is withholding the identity of the couple due to the sensitivity of the subject matter.

The pair registered their marriage in June last year but filed a joint petition to annul the union in December. They premised the petition on the grounds that they had never lived as husband and wife.

However, Peters said the court was not disposed to churn out “quickie divorces” clothed in nullity petitions simply because the couples are no longer interested in remaining in their marriages.

The judge said she would have expected lawyers for the petitioners to have advised them accordingly on the law and facts.

She said there was no evidence to indicate that either party was incapable of consummating the marriage, pursuant to Section 70(a) of the Law Reform (Marriage & Divorce) Act 1976.

Section 70(a) allows for an annulment petition to be filed on the premise of the “incapacity” of either party to consummate the marriage.

Peters also said the petition bore a glaring mistake as it was filed jointly and premised on paragraph (b) of Section 70 of the Act.

“It is clearly stated in paragraph (b) that the refusal to consummate must be on the part of the respondent and not petitioner,” she said.

Peters said a petition for nullity filed under Section 70(b) must be based on the respondent’s wilful refusal to consummate the marriage.

In the present case, however, the judge found that both spouses had admitted to refusing to consummate the marriage in a bid to revert to the status of being single.

The petition indicated that this refusal was on account of an agreement reached between husband and wife.

“In my view, it would make a mockery of the provision to allow a petitioner to file a petition for nullity on the basis of his or her own refusal to consummate the marriage,” said Peters.

“That does not amount to a just excuse that falls within the purview of ‘wilful refusal’,” she added.

She said the petitioners were free to file a joint petition for divorce, but could only do so two years after marriage as provided for in law.