Her husband, an entrepreneur in the spa area, has it tradition with one of his employees, an accountant a few years younger. And she, fifty years old from the Abano area (province of Padua), sued her husband’s lover, asking her for a compensation of 30 thousand euros for the moral damages suffered. According to the betrayed wife, the husband and the lover, living their relationship in the light of the sun (without worrying about “not even hiding his attraction for the employee in public with kisses and hugs”), have humiliated causing her «a serious psychophysical malaise“. The request for compensation, however, was not accepted by the judge of the civil court of Padua, because “the duty of fidelity rests solely on the spouses”, but not on the lover (unless he engages in conduct such as to violate the rights of the wife.
According to the betrayed woman, who previously worked in her husband’s company, the man had “interrupted all sexual intercourse with her and, again at the instigation of her lover, had also removed her from work”. The accountant, on the other hand, would “begin to disrespect her, diminishing his person in front of other workers, addressing him in a disparaging and derogatory way “. The employee, on the other hand, claims that his wife was “blinded by jealousy”, to the point of “denigrating her husband in front of the employees, calling him a failure and a womanizer”.
In the sentence, the judge agreed with the husband’s lover, specifying that “the duty of loyalty resulting from marriage obviously and mainly it concerns the spouses themselves “. Moreover, compensation for damages cannot be claimed “for the simple fact that adultery has been proven”. On the other hand, it would have been plausible if the husband’s behavior had “directly infringed inviolable rights such as the dignity and honor of the betrayed spouse”, for example if he had “boasted of his conquest in the common workplace or spread its images”. But the evidence provided by the betrayed wife has not proved this.
As for the employee, according to the judge, she limited herself to “exercising the constitutionally guaranteed right to the free expression of one’s personality, which is also expressed in the freedom of choice of the loving partner “.
Other stories of Vanity Fair that may interest you:
Treason, what it entails on a legal level
13 emotional spy signals he is cheating on you