marriages have not been terminated by law or death of one spouse are “absolutely void ab ini-tio, without being so decreed, and their nullity may be shown in any collateral pro ceedings....” D.C.Code § 46-401 (2001). On the other hand, voidable marriages include the marriage of a person unable by reason of mental incapacity to give valid consent, a person under the age of 16 years, or marriages procured by fraud or force. D.C.Code § 46-403 (2001 as amended). The law provides that such voidable marriages “shall be void from the time when their nullity shall be declared by decree.” Id. The marriage at issue in this case falls within this latter category, and therefore, by statute, is voidable only from the time of the decree. Id.; see also Martin v. Martin, 240 A.2d 363, 365 (D.C.1968) (<HOLDING>). As such, it cannot be annulled after the
holding that the trial court erred by giving a misleading instruction holding that the trial court erred by refusing to admit evidence that the defendant did not have the sexually transmitted disease that the victim contracted holding that the trial court erred by dismissing the plaintiffs defamation claim holding that the trial court erred by granting the defendants motion to dismiss holding that the trial court erred in holding that a marriage contracted by a mentally incompetent person was void ab initio under a comparable statutory provision