Here is the synopsis of our sample research paper on Pugh v Pugh [1951] and Taczanowska (otherwise Roth) v Taczanowski [1957]. Have the paper e-mailed to you 24/7/365.
Essay / Research Paper Abstract
This 6 page paper examines these two cases concern the recognition of marriage that take place abroad and the different issues that may be considered. The bibliography cites 1 source.
Page Count:
6 pages (~225 words per page)
File: TS14_TEpughtz.rtf
Buy This Term Paper »
Unformatted sample text from the term paper:
Marriage illegal under Age of Marriage Act, 1929 (c 36), s 1(1). In 1949 both parties undertook marriage vows. The vows were taken under Austrian Law with the
wife being under the age of sixteen. The Husband was a resident of England at the time and the Wife a resident of Hungry. The laws of Hungry and Austria
were in favour of the marriage, and therefore was valid. However, the laws in England were not in favour of underage marriage and therefore the marriage would not have been
legally valid. The wife petitioned for a nullity on the grounds that she was under age of sixteen when married to her
husband. She also petitioned for a divorce stating that her husband was also mistreating her. The husband counter petitioned against her stating that his wife had been adulterous during their
marriage. The case was looked at firstly as dealing the wifes petition for an annulment it also looked at the petition for
a divorce on the grounds of cruelty and then the husbands argument of adultery. The court refused to decide on the latter instances until the former had been decided.
The facts were seen and read with the couple moving around Europe and giving birth to a child. In 1950 they moved to England, shortly afterwards the stopped living together.
There are several key issues, the main being that the Austrian Laws allowed the under age marriage. However, if Hungarian Law was taken
into consideration without English law, then the marriage could have been voided due to the wife being underage, however due to the fact that she did not void the marriage
...