The Limited Times

Now you can see non-English news...

A judge condemns a man for hiding from his wife that he had had homosexual relations

2020-10-20T12:24:50.866Z


The judgment imposes compensation of 3,000 euros for the woman and the civil nullity of the marriage, although it states that the defendant, Javier Vilalta, did not act "in bad faith"


Javier Vilalta, in Valencia, two weeks ago.Mònica Torres

A judge has ruled in favor of the woman who sued her ex-husband for "deliberately hiding" her homosexuality during the relationship.

The relationship lasted five years, three of them married, and was settled in 2011 with a divorce by mutual consent.

However, some mutual friends insisted during a dinner in the summer of 2019 that her ex-husband had always been gay and had had relationships with an acquaintance "before, during and after" their marriage.

Despite the fact that the defendant confessed to the plaintiff his "homosexuality" in 2016, he introduced her to his current partner and they maintained a friendship, after the aforementioned revelations, she decided to compensate the situation by civil means, as advanced by EL PAÍS.

The magistrate of the court of first instance number 9 of Valencia has found arguments to agree with the woman.

Representatives of LGTB associations described the hearing, which took place at the end of September, as a "moral judgment."

The judgment declares the civil nullity of the marriage - other than divorce - and compensation of 3,000 euros to the plaintiff, despite the fact that "it has not been proven or that [...] she suffered a social rejection, much less labor damage".

However, the judge ruled that "based on the fact that personal disappointment is not financially compensable, the compensation must [...] be reduced to the amount of € 1,000 for each of the three years the marriage lasted."

While it exempts the defendant from "bad faith", it accredits that "there was concealment of what was to be his wife from the homosexual relationship and practice prior to marriage."

The defendant, the Valencian lawyer Javier Vilalta, denied through his lawyer "having had full homosexual relationships before getting married, beyond adolescent dances in a few years of sexual indefiniteness."

However, the statement of one of the testimonies had enough "forcefulness and coherence" for the judge to prove that it was not.

The judge relies on the judgment of the Provincial Court of Barcelona (section 18, January 15, 2020) in which it is determined “error in the identity of the person of the other contracting party”.

That error has, according to the ruling cited by the Valencian judge, "annulled scope" and defines that the plaintiff "would not have given her matrimonial consent" had she known homosexual relations.

In fact, it values ​​the fact that the witnesses have related the surprise with which the ex-wife received the information at that dinner in the summer of 2019. A change of perspective that became over the months in a civil lawsuit, that according to the defendant was the first news about the intentions of his ex-wife after 15 years since their relationship began.

The judge also highlights that she excludes the plaintiff from "any homophobic attitude", since she "showed full respect towards her ex-husband's homosexuality."

But this attitude "does not mean" that the plaintiff subsequently initiated this process that "affects the validity of the consent due to her erroneous conviction that Mr. Vilalta was heterosexual."

It also excludes a

diabolical

probatio

, since the judge considers it impossible to show that, "had he known of his sexual condition, he would not have married."

However, the sentence leaves a social interpretation of the facts: "It is obvious that for most people the sexual orientation of their partners is not a trivial fact or circumstance, and in any case the opposite must be proven."

The aforementioned Barcelona ruling ensures that knowledge of the sexual orientation of the spouses “is essential or identifying from the sociological perspective: common opinion, in the family or social environment, is identified with the consideration that this fact may in fact condition the matrimonial consent ”.

That seems to be the basis on which the Valencian court ruling is built, which avoids "venturing into what are the reasons why Mr. Vilalta did not express his sexual orientation to his wife."

Some reasons that are not taken into account and that, from the defendant's defense, are key.

A lack of definition that is part of a long process that includes, according to this defense, sufficient arguments to understand what happened in this case with a broader perspective.

Of course, the judge also clarifies that Vilalta did not use marriage "as a screen to offer a certain image socially."

The defendant has assured this newspaper that he will appeal the sentence.

Its intention is to bring out these types of processes that happen against homosexual or bisexual people, which usually do not reach public opinion "and which violate several fundamental rights in their process."

The truth is that the civil procedure seemed inevitable to the parties, but the sentence is clear in its ruling and agrees with the defendant's ex-wife.

On the bisexuality that Vilalta declared there is no trace neither in the original lawsuit nor in the judgment of the judge, nor in the Civil Code. The Prosecutor's Office aligned itself with the defendant during the trial and deemed it appropriate that he only testify through his lawyer. At that time, Vilalta's defense was based on the fact that he had already had proven sexual relations with women before and after his marriage. Vilalta's "sexual lack of definition" seems to have run against her, since the magistrate's ruling states that she did not provide "direct evidence" of relationships with other women, "and she could easily have proven such contacts, bringing her

partners

as witnesses

" . A fact, that of contributing to the process the direct testimonies of women who had had relations with him, that the defendant's defense did not raise, but which was influenced by the plaintiff's lawyer and has had weight in the ruling.

Source: elparis

All life articles on 2020-10-20

You may like

News/Politics 2024-03-14T15:36:51.462Z

Trends 24h

Latest

© Communities 2019 - Privacy

The information on this site is from external sources that are not under our control.
The inclusion of any links does not necessarily imply a recommendation or endorse the views expressed within them.