Short answer
Nullity is the setting aside of a marriage by court decision because of a legal defect existing at the time of the ceremony. An existing other marriage, certain capacity and kinship problems are grounds of absolute nullity; a temporary loss of discernment, a mistake of the kind described in the statute, deception or intimidation may be grounds of relative nullity. Not every unhappy marriage or incomplete application gives rise to nullity.
Divorce ends a validly formed marriage on the statutory divorce grounds; nullity concerns a defect at the origin of the marriage. Whether a later-discovered fact existed at the ceremony, who may bring the action and which time limit applies must therefore be examined separately. This is general information, not a determination of an individual application.
What are the grounds of absolute nullity?
TMK art. 145 lists four core situations: one of the spouses was already married at the ceremony, a lasting cause of lack of discernment, a mental illness of a degree that impedes marriage, and kinship of a prohibited degree between the spouses. These grounds are assessed under the statutory conditions.
An error in the civil-status record and a genuinely continuing other marriage are not the same thing. Likewise, not every health problem is a mental illness that impedes marriage. Records relating to the date of the ceremony and, where needed, specialist assessment are decisive.
As to prohibited kinship, affinity and adoptive relationships specified in the statute matter as well as blood kinship. The statement “we are relatives” is not enough by itself; it should be explained exactly through which persons the relationship is formed.
Who may bring an action for absolute nullity?
Under TMK art. 146, the public prosecutor brings the action of his or her own motion; interested persons may also sue. Being “interested” does not mean that anyone may intervene in a marriage out of curiosity or objection. A legal interest must be shown.
TMK art. 147 places some limits on the right of action. After a marriage has ended, the prosecutor’s action of his or her own motion and an interested person’s request that nullity be declared are regulated differently. There is also a special rule as to who may sue if capacity of discernment is later acquired or the illness improves.
If a person who married while already married sees the earlier marriage end before the nullity judgment, and the other spouse in the second marriage acted in good faith, the statutory protection may arise. Finding a defect at the outset therefore does not mean that every file will reach the same result.
In which situations may relative nullity be sought?
A spouse who, at the ceremony, temporarily lacked capacity of discernment may seek annulment under TMK art. 148. It is examined whether the temporary condition truly affected the will to marry. Not every illness before or after the ceremony falls under this article.
TMK art. 149 covers giving consent by mistake although the person did not want the marriage or the person married, and a mistake as to a quality of such importance that its absence would make living together intolerable. Not every later disappointment is a mistake of the kind described in the statute.
A spouse’s failure to meet expectations, disagreement in the relationship or regret after marriage is not by itself a ground of relative nullity. How the facts fit the statutory ground and why they relate to the moment of the ceremony should be made concrete.
How are deception and intimidation assessed?
For nullity, deception is a concept different from everyday infidelity. TMK art. 150 covers being induced to marry by deception as to the spouse’s honour, and concealment of an illness that poses a serious danger to the health of the plaintiff or of descendants. Not every false statement is automatically a ground of annulment.
Adultery after the marriage is assessed mainly under the divorce provisions. Where concealment of a pre-ceremony fact is alleged, which statutory condition of deception is met should be shown separately. The sentence “I was deceived” is not enough to explain these two different legal paths.
Under TMK art. 151, being induced to marry by intimidation through a very imminent and serious danger to the life, health or honour of the person or of a close relative may be a ground of annulment. The existence and gravity of family pressure are examined on the concrete facts; free will, safety and evidence are considered together.
How do the six-month and five-year periods run?
TMK art. 152 ties a spouse’s request for annulment on relative-nullity grounds to a six-month forfeiture period from learning the cause or from the end of the effect of fear, and in any event to five years from the marriage. The starting points are not the same; the calendar should be drawn separately.
Applying these periods to every case of absolute nullity is incorrect. Likewise, the five-year period in divorce for adultery is tied to the adulterous act, whereas here the date of the marriage is decisive. The use of similar figures in different legal institutions does not mean that the starting events are the same.
The date of learning should be documented. An undefined suspicion may differ from learning a legally significant fact. In preparing an action, the date of the ceremony, the date of learning, the date on which fear ended and the date of filing may be shown on separate lines.
What if the legal representative’s consent was not obtained?
If a minor or a person under guardianship married without the legal representative’s consent, TMK art. 153 gives the legal representative a right of action. Later majority, the ending of guardianship or a pregnancy of the kind specified in the statute may affect the outcome of the request for annulment.
This issue should not be treated in the same way as a relative-nullity action brought by a spouse for mistake or intimidation. Who sued, which consent was missing and the effect of later developments are examined separately. A breach of the age condition should also not be explained with a single ready-made formula.
Which shortcomings are not, by themselves, grounds of nullity?
Under TMK art. 154, a woman’s marriage without observing the waiting period is not by itself a ground of nullity. TMK art. 155 also states that non-observance of other formal rules in a marriage celebrated before the competent officer does not by itself produce nullity. That does not mean that all procedural rules are unimportant.
The absence of the constitutive elements of marriage is different from a defect in an existing marriage. A religious ceremony alone does not create a civil marriage. Non-existence, absolute nullity and relative nullity should therefore not be used interchangeably.
The marriage and the children until judgment
Under TMK art. 156, a void marriage produces the effects of a valid marriage until the judge’s decision. A person may not remarry on the basis of a private assessment that “the ceremony was already invalid”. Finality and the arrangement of civil-status records also matter.
TMK art. 157 protects the status of the children; a nullity judgment does not extinguish their rights. As to custody and personal contact, and as to the spouses’ financial consequences, the relevant divorce provisions and the rules of good faith are assessed. Property, maintenance and damages cannot be resolved merely by saying that the marriage has been annulled.
Sources and related guides
The main legal bases are TMK arts. 142 and 145–160. In preparing an action, marriage records, health assessments, relevant consents and lawful evidence of the time of learning should be examined together.