A woman’s bid for marriage annulment fell through after she failed to prove that her husband’s “obsession” with body building and his affair with a transvestite pointed towards vitiated marital vows on his part.

The judge presiding over the family court was presented solely with the evidence put forward by the woman herself after her estranged husband failed to file a reply to the initial court application.

According to the version supplied by the woman, the couple had met on Facebook at a time when the man had already fathered a child by a former partner. Two months into the relationship, she had allegedly caught him cheating.

The woman’s family disapproved of the relationship because he already had a child, and a number of lawsuits pending before the courts.

However, the woman went ahead with the relationship, lured by the man who used to shower her with gifts and insist that she turn her back on her relatives.

She ultimately broke off all contact with her family and moved in with the man.

“I was led to believe that the only choice I had was either to marry him or else end up without a roof above my head,” the woman testified in court.

The relationship soon began to fall apart, with the couple spending little time together as he devoted more time to his bodybuilding regime than to his wife.

Communication was poor, there was no sign of love and respect and no commitment on his part to create a normal marital relationship, the woman insisted in court.

As the couple drifted apart, the man allegedly had an affair with a transvestite, prompting the wife to express shock about his hidden tastes.

However, the woman’s claim was rejected, with Madam Justice Abigail Lofaro observing that the woman had known, well before her marriage, about her partner’s devotion to his sport.

As for his affair with the transvestite, that had occurred when the couple’s marriage was already on the rocks and the two were living apart, the court noted.

Nor had the woman succeeded in proving a serious lack of discretion of judgment on the part of her husband. There was too little and scanty evidence gathered from the nine-month marriage to prove this ground, the court observed.

Based upon the evidence put forward solely by the woman, the court turned down her request for an annulment.