She risks losing everything and the love of a good husband, by meeting her lover in the sacred family home.
It is apparent from a ruling by the Supreme Court, which confirmed the judgment by which the Messina Court of Appeal had declared the revocation "by ingratitude" of the indirect donations made by a man for the benefit of his wife, to whom he had co-owned the co-ownership of real estate purchased with their own money.
THE JUDGMENT - This episode dates back to 1975, when Aldo I, her betrayed husband, had sued the former spouse Silvana P. who at the age of 36 and mother of three children had links to a 23-year-old. The woman turned to the Supreme Court to request the annulment of the Judgment of the Judges, but the "ermellini" of the second civil section rejected her appeal: "The court of appeal - reads in judgment no. 4093 - has consistently held that, in accordance with the reading that the case has consistently given to the institution concerned, that the serious injury required by Article 801 as the presumption of revocation consists in the conduct with which he respects the honour and to the donor's decorum an offence susceptible of severely damaging the moral heritage of the person, so to detect a feeling of aversion that manifests such ingratitude towards the one who has benefited the agent, which is repugnant to the common conscience. "
With a motivation "free from logical or legal vices," the courts of Piazza Cavour continued, the Court of Appeal held that "it was not so much the offence of marital infidelity of the applicant, who at the age of thirty-six, already a mother of three children, had made a relationship with a twenty-three-year-old man who had been clandestinely pursued for several years and had come to the family's home to live with his new companion, as the Supreme Court found - the total attitude adopted, lies and other misdemeanours to her husband, without knowledge of which the applicant joined with the lover in the marital residence ".