A judge in Ireland has annulled a marriage after a husband insisted he had no idea his wife intended to transition and live as a man.
The couple – who cannot be named for legal reasons – married before the spouse began transitioning.
The court heard that the partner now identifies as male, uses he/him pronouns and is officially registered as a man on both his passport and driving licence.
During a private family law hearing at the Eastern Circuit Court in Louth, it also emerged the marriage had never been consummated.
According to the Irish Independent, the husband told the court he would never have agreed to the wedding had he known his partner’s intention to transition.
He also said he was aware of at least one similar case in which a judge had previously granted an annulment.
Judge Terence O’Sullivan said annulments could not be granted only on the basis of sexual orientation.
However, he noted that Irish annulment law has evolved to reflect updated legislation on gender identity.
In his ruling, Judge O’Sullivan found that there was no fully informed or valid consent at the time of the marriage, rendering it void and never legally recognised.
He granted the annulment without costs, meaning neither party must pay the other’s legal fees.
In the UK, a spouse may also be able to seek an annulment if their partner changes gender – but only under specific conditions, including whether the transitioning partner holds a Gender Recognition Certificate.
Earlier this year, a judge ordered a divorcee to pay half of her ex-husband’s £160,000 trans surgery bill.
In what is thought to be the first case of its kind, the judge said the surgery was a ‘need’ and not a ‘whim’ – meaning it was ‘reasonable’ for the couple, who cannot be named for legal reasons, to split the cost.
The wife, 60, claimed her husband’s decision to transition led to the breakdown of the their marriage and therefore unfair for her to shell out £80,000 for the procedure.
During the hearing at Brighton Family Court, the husband, 58, argued ‘it would be like saying someone who had cancer should not have the surgery and that accordingly the cost of that surgery should be met from joint funds’.
The pair first met in London in the late 1990s while working in the financial sector before marrying in 2002, when the husband was living as a man.
Twenty years later, in 2022, he revealed to his wife he was ‘intending to ‘transition to a woman’ and ‘commenced hormone therapy at that stage’, the judge said.
The wife started divorce proceedings two months later, the Telegraph reports.
The couple had accumulated £3million in joint assets during their marriage and were described as having a ‘very international lifestyle living in several countries in different continents and purchasing properties in various countries’.
They shared two children, who are now at university after they were privately educated.
The husband’s surgery took place last year, after the couple had separated for two years, and was paid using their joint money.
The £160,00 cost was at the centre of the legal dispute, which is understood to have cost the couple almost £1million in legal fees.
During the separation, the husband claimed he could not afford to pay court-ordered maintenance to his wife and children.
However, the husband – who has retrained as a massage therapist and Reiki practitioner – spent £14,000 on an Amex card in one month, ‘mainly on clothing, nails, jewellery and restaurants’ and got £13,000 worth of tattoos in six months
He argued his surgery should be ‘treated in the way of any other medical costs which would ordinarily be met from the joint assets’.
In his ruling, the judge said that the husband, who says his wife always knew he was trans, had provided medical evidence of gender dysphoria which had caused ‘significant anxiety, depression and distress’.
The wife said in her evidence that ‘she was not aware that the respondent wished to transition until the end of the marriage’.
She added it was ‘devastating and a big surprise’ and was ‘deeply shocked’ when her husband ‘stated that she intended to live her new life as a lesbian woman’.
She argued that the surgery costs should be paid out of his personal assets, saying that it was unfair she had to stump up the money as the decision to transition ’caused the end of the marriage’.
The husband responded: ‘You marry a trans person. You live with a trans person. You benefit from a trans person. They are suicidal and you support them.’
