A judge has told a 75-year-old man that the non-stop texting to his wife of nearly 50 years has to stop.
At the family law court, Judge Patrick Durcan ordered that the man can only send two texts a week to his wife.
The woman – who has moved out of the family home to stay with relatives – was seeking a safety order after already been granted an earlier protection order.
In a plea to Judge Patrick Durcan, the man said: “Is there is a possibility she would come back? I’d love that. I’m broken hearted . . . I love my wife dearly . . . I am pining without her, to be honest with you. I would take her back tomorrow.”
In response, the woman said: “There is love for him, but at the moment I need time.”
In a further plea to the judge, the man asked that his wife would respond to one of his texts.
“It would be a lift to my health, I am not feeling well now. Even if she texts back and said, ‘how are you?’ I would be thrilled if she responded,” he said.
When the judge proposed that the man text his wife once a day or every second day, solicitor for the woman, Ronan Murphy, said: “Not at this point; he is the offending party here. She is a very forgiving woman as her husband has pointed out.”
‘Frightened’
Mr Murphy told the court that his client is “frightened” at the moment. He said that “the continuous texting . . . is a breach of the protection order”.
The judge told the woman that “I am going to keep you under the court’s protection” and told her husband, “I don’t want you texting non-stop.”
The judge said he would allow the parties text each other twice a week.
Addressing the man, the judge told him: “Just make a little contact because too much contact would create problems.”
The pensioner told the court that his grown-up children came to the family home to talk with him about the situation after his wife had left.
He said: “I put my hands up and said, ‘I’m sorry, I’m totally at fault’. I told them, ‘It won’t happen again. I love mammy’.”
The circumstances or incident that resulted in the woman obtaining the protection order were not disclosed in open court.
The judge said that he would not make an order at this time, but would adjourn the case for one month.
