Civil Court nullifies 'marriage of convenience'

Two years after a man who fell victim to a marriage of convenience got his union annulled by the Church, the Civil Court declared the marriage null because it resulted that the woman had committed bigamy.

In an interview published in Pink magazine last year the man explained how he fell victim to the Moroccan woman who, he believed, loved him when she married him.

He recounted how the situation had unfolded and he learnt she was involved in human trafficking and was already married before she met him.

In the interview the man said his wife had left him when she was pregnant with their son, a few months after they got married. The woman eventually left Malta, leaving her newborn child behind for the man to care for.

The man then initiated annulment proceedings and in June, 2004, the Metropolitan Church Tribunal ruled that the marriage was null as she had committed bigamy.

The man then took the case before the Court of Appeal so that, as laid down in the Marriage Act, the court would register the decision of the tribunal and declare the marriage null.

However, the court had noted that the woman had been absent during the tribunal sittings, as she could not be found, and the tribunal had not appointed anyone to represent her.

Quoting article 24 (5)(ii) of the Marriage Act, the court noted that the woman had not had a fair hearing and the court was not satisfied that the tribunal's ruling should be registered.

The man then initiated a separate case for civil annulment in the Family Court claiming that the woman had married him out of convenience and, in fact, had left him five months after they tied the knot.

He added that when their marriage took place she was already married to a Moroccan man and no evidence had been brought that the man was dead.

Mr Justice Noel Cuschieri declared the marriage null since the woman had committed bigamy.

This means the man can now free himself of the legal ties with the woman which ties, as he had said in the Pink interview, had stopped him from obtaining a bank loan to buy a house for him and his son to live in.

Lawyer Owen Bonnici represented the man.