Queensland Man Divorces Wife Over Deformed Nipples

A Queensland man divorced his wife of almost 40 years because of her disfigured nipples. The unnamed couple were married in 1972 and had three children together, but the husband disputed the year of their separation, claiming he wanted out of the marriage as soon as he found out about his wife’s alleged deformity.

Fairfax Media reports the husband claimed to a Canberra court that his marriage ended in 1999 even though they continued sleeping in the same bed until 2006, and had attended family events together, gone out to dinner with friends and gone on holiday together until 2011. The wife insisted they separated in 2011.

Apparently, the man had been unhappy with their marriage since 1975 after he discovered his wife’s “physical disfigurement.” He wanted out of the marriage but stayed because of their children. He “felt morally obliged” to stay until the youngest reached 18 years old, which was in 2000. He also did her tax returns until 2002, and they used the same credit card until 2007. He lodged a compensation claim in 2004, in which he referred to his wife doing the gardening.

He called his wife before their marriage a “fake” and an “illusion,” accusing her of avoiding sex to hide her deformed nipples. “If I had seen them before I would not have married her,” he said, according to court papers. He only saw her breasts in 1974, explaining that whenever they become involved in sexual intercourse, she avoided letting him see her breasts.

“Our marriage was doomed. If she had not been pregnant I would have sought a divorce in 1975,” the husband stated. However, the two still had “occasional” sex between 1975 and 1999. He also confessed that he sometimes slept in the same bed as his wife at least up until 2006. When the wife told his mother that they had separated in 2011, he became angry with the wife because he did not want his mother to know and that in fact they were still “a continuing married couple.”

Judge Warwick Nevill released his judgment in December 2014, which was published earlier in April, siding with the wife. He ruled that all evidence clearly supported his wife’s claims that they separated in 2011, and not in 1999 as the husband claimed.

The judge described the husband as “quite self-absorbed” and had felt bitterness or resentfulness towards his wife that coloured his view of the word and his evidence. He berated the husband for not acting on his intention to split from his wife in 1975 if that was truly his intention. On the contrary, the husband continued to have children with the woman he considered to have deceived him by having breast disfigurement.

“Certainly, as a matter of law, disfigurement of any kind is not grounds for divorce,” the judge ruled, adding that the husband did not say if he considered the remedial surgery undertaken by his wife to have repaired the marriage. The judge called for the split of the former couple’s assets evenly.