Despite having multiple children together and being married for nearly four decades, a man and woman decided to divorce, and now, the husband is telling a court that he shouldn’t have to pay as much for divorce proceedings because he probably never would have married her in the first place if he had only known about her deformed nipples.
In the bizarre attempt to owe less money, a man in Canberra, Australia, told the Federal Circuit Court that he would never have married his wife if he had known about her “deformed nipples” before the vows were exchanged. The man claimed he had planned to leave the woman once their youngest child became an adult back in 2000, but the wife says their marriage never officially ended until 2011. The couple reportedly married in 1972, but the husband never saw his wife’s breasts until late 1974.
In an affidavit to the court, the man says that the two had sex “occasionally” between 1975 and 1999, and during that time, their marriage was pretty much fake.
“The person I lived with before our marriage was a fake, an illusion,” the man wrote in the affidavit, adding that his wife “reinforced her true prudish character…to avoid her disfigurement being discovered.
“I did not see her breasts, until late 1974 [when] I discovered [she] had a physical disfigurement,” the man said. “If I had seen them before I would not have married her. Our marriage was doomed. If she had not been pregnant I would have sought a divorce in 1975.”
“Whatever the husband thought and held privately about the end of the relationship, nonetheless he did nothing either to inform or otherwise to represent to outside observers that he and the wife were anything other than a married couple,” the judge said. “[The husband had] a very cavalier, if not a misleading and remarkably nonchalant, bordering on an immaturely irresponsible, approach … to the marital relationship with the wife which he cannot now claim to disavow, or to assert that it ended in 1999. There was a patent level of bitterness or resentfulness towards the wife that coloured his view of the world generally and his evidence in particular.”
The judge went on to describe the man as “self-absorbed.”
“In my view, among other evidence is the critical fact that the husband did not act on his intention to sever the marital relationship with the wife,” the judge determined. “He clearly did not do it in 1974 or 1975 when, on his evidence, he considered the marriage to be at an end. And as I have observed, he continued to have children with the woman he considered to have deceived him in relation to some form of breast disfigurement, which he said was a signal element of the marriage.”
Sources: Daily Mail, The Canberra Times
Photo Sources: Pixabay, Wikimedia Commons