Quote:
Originally Posted by Mrs. Funk
... and refused to consummate her marriage. Ever. After six months, her now ex-husband (quite understandably) gave her a one-way ticket back to her parents.
|
From our friends at AmJur (28 A.L.R.2d 499) :
The mere fact that one spouse has refused to have sexual intercourse with the other is not a ground for an annulment except where there is some such statute as the English Matrimonial Causes Act of 1937, which provides that a marriage shall be voidable on the ground that the marriage has not been consummated owing to the wilful refusal of the respondent to consummate the marriage.
However, it is extraordinary conduct for one spouse (usually the wife) to persistently refuse to have sexual intercourse with the other from the solemnization of the marriage until the separation of the parties.
Where one of the parties had the intention, at the time of the marriage, of not engaging in sexual intercourse with the other after the marriage, and the other party did not know of that intention at the time of the ceremony and would not have entered into the contract of marriage if he had known of the intention, and the guilty party continuously and wrongfully refuses to have sexual intercourse after the marriage, this is such a fraud as justifies the annulment of the marriage.
Plaintiff need not show that there was an express promise to have intercourse after the marriage, because when a man and a woman are of suitable age for normal sexual relations and do not discuss their intentions concerning such relations, each is entitled to assume that the other intends to engage in normal sexual practices after the ceremony, and if one of them has the intention of refusing all intercourse after the ceremony and does not reveal it, he is guilty of a fraudulent concealment.
Ordinary sexual relations are one of the essentials of the matrimonial state, and where one of the parties has a fraudulent intention not to have sexual relations with the other after the marriage ceremony the fraud relates to an essential of the marriage relationship or, as it is said, the fraud goes to the essence of the contract.