Se lui non può avere figli e non lo dice, il tradimento della moglie è meno grave. E non può essere causa di separazione neppure se i due amanti sono stati sorpresi dal marito di lei nel letto coniugale.
Lo ha stabilito la Cassazione, con sentenza n. 6697/2009, sottolineando che i figli sono “una dimensione fondamentale della persona e una delle finalità del matrimonio”.
Annullata dagli «ermellini» in nome della «lealtà tra coniugi» una sentenza della Corte d’appello di Firenze che aveva giudicato la moglie infedele colpevole della separazione, aggiungendo anche che l’impossibilità per il marito di avere figli non era «sufficiente provata» in quanto avallata soltanto and testimonial evidence.
the contrary, wrote in its ruling the court of second instance, the episode of treachery is documented that having brought her husband in court as a witness to the very man who had been caught in the house with his wife.
The Supreme Court found that the alleged infidelity was reduced to a "chance meeting", so that even her husband had "identified in the episode a permanent affair."
Secondly, it adds to the Supreme Court, the husband has violated the 'obligation of loyalty "by failing to inform his wife before the wedding of her inability to bear children.
In essence, then, faced with a behavior contrary to the duties of marriage by both spouses, the conduct of one can not be judged without its comparison with that of the other, because only such a comparison can be seen what, if any were of the same effect, in their mutual interfere in the occurrence of marital crisis (Cass. civ., Sec. I, March 19, 2009, 6697).
Lo ha stabilito la Cassazione, con sentenza n. 6697/2009, sottolineando che i figli sono “una dimensione fondamentale della persona e una delle finalità del matrimonio”.
Annullata dagli «ermellini» in nome della «lealtà tra coniugi» una sentenza della Corte d’appello di Firenze che aveva giudicato la moglie infedele colpevole della separazione, aggiungendo anche che l’impossibilità per il marito di avere figli non era «sufficiente provata» in quanto avallata soltanto and testimonial evidence.
the contrary, wrote in its ruling the court of second instance, the episode of treachery is documented that having brought her husband in court as a witness to the very man who had been caught in the house with his wife.
The Supreme Court found that the alleged infidelity was reduced to a "chance meeting", so that even her husband had "identified in the episode a permanent affair."
Secondly, it adds to the Supreme Court, the husband has violated the 'obligation of loyalty "by failing to inform his wife before the wedding of her inability to bear children.
In essence, then, faced with a behavior contrary to the duties of marriage by both spouses, the conduct of one can not be judged without its comparison with that of the other, because only such a comparison can be seen what, if any were of the same effect, in their mutual interfere in the occurrence of marital crisis (Cass. civ., Sec. I, March 19, 2009, 6697).
0 comments:
Post a Comment