A couple was married for 40 years and had three children together. However, the former husband claims he shouldn’t have to split assets with his former wife, as she had “deformed nipples.” The man claims that, despite marrying the woman in 1972, he never saw his wife’s breasts until 1974. At this point, he says he would have divorced the woman because of her “deformed nipples” but she was pregnant so he stayed.
The Daily Mail reports that the Canberra man was attempting to lower the amount of money he owed to his wife of 40 years by claiming they technically divorced in 1999 and that her “deformed nipples” were the cause. The man says that despite having three children with the woman, he would have divorced her in 1974 when he first saw her nipples. He says that the woman went to great lengths to hide her physical disfigurement and that if he had known her nipples were deformed, he never would have married her.
“The person I lived with before our marriage was a fake, an illusion. I did not see her breasts, until late 1974 [when] I discovered [she] had a physical disfigurement. If I had seen them before I would not have married her.”
However, upon seeing her nipples, the man says that she was already pregnant so he stayed with her. He seems to skirt around the fact that the couple had two other children together, requiring the two to be physically intimate. He says they had sex “occasionally” and that is how the children were conceived. The man also doesn’t fully explain why he remained married to the woman for 40 years if he was as good as gone after discovering her physical disfigurement.
The court case showed that despite the man claiming the couple had lived separate lives since 1999 and were all but divorced by that time, the couple had filed joint tax returns as a married couple in 2002, had slept in the same bed together until 2006, used the same credit cards until 2007, and had attended family events until 2011 as a couple. Therefore, the judge ruled in the wife’s favor that the assets should be split evenly.
“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 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. 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. 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.”
What do you think of this man’s sad attempt to lower the amount he owed in divorce proceedings by claiming his wife’s “deformed nipples” were to blame for their marriage falling apart?
[Image Credit: Getty Images/ Hannah Rayes]