Updated: June 2026

Case study · Malta · Tax

How to Include a Common-Law Wife in Malta PermanentResidence through an Affidavit of Relationship

Programmes prefer a formal stamp in a passport, but life does not: many couples live together for years without registration. MPRP directly includes a spouse, but what about a common-law wife? A couple that had lived together for many years without formal marriage wanted to obtain Malta Permanent Residence together. We explain step-by-step how we proved the stability of their relationship through an Affidavit and evidence of cohabitation and included the partner in the application.

Anna KovalevskayaAnna KovalevskayaHead of Legal, BRIDGESReading time8 min readVerificationReviewed by an expert

This case is based on a real matter. The name and certain identifying details have been changed to protect confidentiality.

BRIDGES client story - How to Include a Common-Law Wife in Malta Permanent Residence through an Affidavit of Relationship
Contents

Case at a glance

Situation, solution and outcome in seven lines

Clients
Couple in an unregistered (common-law) marriage
Objective
Malta Permanent Residence for both partners
Programme
Malta Permanent Residence (Malta Permanent Residence Programme)
Challenge
MPRP directly includes a spouse, but not a partner without formal registration
Evidence
Affidavit plus evidence of cohabitation
Solution
Standard of proof for relationships, supporting evidence, legal justification
Result
Partner included, status granted to both

Client story

Client Story

Where they started

The couple had lived together for many years: shared home, shared household, shared budget—all signs of family except one—an official stamp. They did not want to register marriage for the sake of the programme, nor did they consider it necessary: for them, the family had already been established without formalities.

Why the standard route did not work

This is where the difficulty arose. MPRP directly includes the applicant's spouse, but an unregistered partner does not directly fall under this definition. It turned out that the applicant qualified, while his common-law wife was in question, as if their many years of shared life meant nothing.

What BRIDGES had to solve

Closing this gap with a rushed marriage is not a solution: it is coercion and a red flag for compliance. The correct approach is to prove that the relationship is real and stable through evidence, not a stamp.

Why a standard answer would not do

The couple approached BRIDGES, understanding that the task was not to "get married quickly," but to legally and properly confirm the family so that the partner would be included in the application on a lawful basis.

We have been together for many years, just without a stamp—and we were told that Permanent Residence includes a spouse, but not a common-law wife. We did not want to register marriage for the sake of the programme. Anna did not rush us to the registry office—she gathered evidence that we are truly a family, prepared an Affidavit, and the partner was included. Both humanely and according to the law.

Para · Client, ApplicantThe name and certain identifying details have been changed to protect confidentiality.

What Was at Risk

What Was at Risk

The programme is oriented towards a formal stamp, while a real family may not have one. A rushed marriage for the sake of status is both coercion and a red flag. The stability of relationships must be proven through evidence and an Affidavit, not through formalities on paper.

Inclusion of the applicant only—partner remains without status

  1. 01Pressure towards a rushed marriage for the sake of the programme
  2. 02Perception of the relationship by compliance as fictitious without evidence
  3. 03Refusal to include the partner due to absence of formal registration
  4. 04Family separation by status: one with Permanent Residence, the other without

The logic of the solution

How the matter progressed: from checks to result

The chart is built from the facts of this matter and shows the logic of the work without decorative or unverified data.

  1. 01
    Stage 1

    We clarified whom MPRP recognizes as a dependent and under what conditions an unregistered partner can be included - we established the evidentiary standard for stable relationships and determined what documentation needed to be gathered.

  2. 02
    Stage 2

    We collected evidence of shared life: common address, joint accounts and expenses, duration of relationship, shared obligations - documentation that replaced the marriage certificate.

  3. 03
    Stage 3

    We prepared an Affidavit under oath regarding the nature and duration of the relationship and financial interdependence of the partners - a document accepted by compliance as a statement made under oath.

  4. 04
    Stage 4

    We attached legal justification for including the civil partner as a dependent, citing applicable program provisions - ensuring the basis was regulatory rather than discretionary.

  5. 05
    Stage 5

    We compiled a unified application package for both parties and submitted it to RMA, pre-emptively addressing the expected question "why no marriage" with collected evidence.

Takeaway. Family status was confirmed without hasty marriage and without loss of the partner's standing: we proved the reality of the relationship, not its formality. The couple obtained status while remaining true to themselves.

How we solved the challenge

How we solved the challenge

The work was split into verifiable stages so that every conclusion rested on documents.

  1. 01

    Stage 1

    We clarified whom MPRP recognizes as a dependent and under what conditions an unregistered partner can be included - we established the evidentiary standard for stable relationships and determined what documentation needed to be gathered.

  2. 02

    Stage 2

    We collected evidence of shared life: common address, joint accounts and expenses, duration of relationship, shared obligations - documentation that replaced the marriage certificate.

  3. 03

    Stage 3

    We prepared an Affidavit under oath regarding the nature and duration of the relationship and financial interdependence of the partners - a document accepted by compliance as a statement made under oath.

  4. 04

    Stage 4

    We attached legal justification for including the civil partner as a dependent, citing applicable program provisions - ensuring the basis was regulatory rather than discretionary.

  5. 05

    Stage 5

    We compiled a unified application package for both parties and submitted it to RMA, pre-emptively addressing the expected question "why no marriage" with collected evidence.

  6. 06

    Stage 6

    We addressed RMA's clarification request regarding the partner's status with additional evidence of shared life - the partner was included in the application, status confirmed for both.

Expert comment

I appreciate cases with non-standard family structures - where formality conflicts with reality. A couple living together for years without registration, yet the program requires a marriage certificate. I won't push people into marriage for status purposes: it's both wrong and raises compliance concerns. We proved the family through other means - shared household, joint budget, duration, plus a sworn Affidavit and legal justification. For me, each such case is about ensuring no one is left behind. The partner was included on legal grounds.

Anna Kovalevskaya, Head of Legal, BRIDGESAnna KovalevskayaHead of Legal, BRIDGES

Outcome

What the client received

What was required
How we achieved it · Result
Include civil partner
Evidence of relationship + Affidavit · Partner included in application
Avoid hasty marriage
Evidence of shared life · Formal registration not required
Address compliance concerns
Legal justification · Basis recognized
Obtain status for both
Unified MPRP application · Permanent residency for couple
Obtain status for both
Unified MPRP application · Permanent residency for couple

The couple obtained Malta permanent residency together: relationship stability was proven through Affidavit and evidence of shared life, inclusion of the civil partner was legally justified, and the question of absent marriage was addressed proactively. The partner entered the application on legal grounds.

Practical takeaway

What matters in a similar situation

  • Family status was confirmed without hasty marriage and without loss of the partner's standing: we proved the reality of the relationship, not its formality. The couple obtained status while remaining true to themselves.
  • This case demonstrates that absence of formal registration is not an obstacle. Stable relationships are proven through evidence and Affidavit, and with proper legal justification, a civil partner is included in the program.

FAQ

Questions people ask in a similar situation

01Can an unregistered partner be included in Malta permanent residency?

Yes, upon proof of stable relationship and mutual dependence. This is confirmed through a sworn Affidavit and evidence of shared life, plus legal justification for inclusion.

02What is an Affidavit of relationship?

Statutory declaration regarding the character, duration of relationship, and financial interdependence of partners. Compliance accepts it as a statement under personal liability—an equivalent to missing marriage certificate.

03How is cohabitation proven?

Through common address, joint accounts and expenses, duration of relationship, and shared obligations. The more comprehensive the evidence, the more convincing the proof.

04Isn't it simpler to just get married?

Expedited marriage for program purposes constitutes pressure on the couple and raises a red flag for compliance. Without official registration, it is more appropriate to demonstrate the genuine nature of the relationship rather than simulate formality.

05Is partner inclusion guaranteed?

The competent authority of Malta makes the decision. With comprehensive evidence, Affidavit, and proper justification, the chances of inclusion are high, but no consultant can guarantee it.

06Living in common-law marriage and seeking Permanent Residence together?

We will prove relationship stability through Affidavit and cohabitation evidence, and include your partner in the MPRP composition—in accordance with law and without expedited marriage for program purposes.

About the author

Anna Kovalevskaya

Author: Anna Kovalevskaya

Head of Legal, BRIDGES

I have worked with citizenship and residency matters in European countries for 12 years. Programme requirements and application practices change, so I assess each matter against the current rules, the applicant's immigration history, family composition and the documents supporting the legal basis for the application.

I lead matters from the preliminary assessment through to the grant of status. In complex situations, I identify the circumstances that may affect the review, establish the legal logic of the application and oversee the consistency of the supporting documents at every stage.

During the consultation, you will receive an assessment of the available legal grounds, a clear understanding of the chosen route and a list of issues that should be resolved before filing. Once the engagement begins, I oversee the application and the key decisions of the BRIDGES team.

Prepared on the basis of BRIDGES practice and reviewed by a subject-matter expert.

Discuss your situation with Anna

We will review your situation and propose a solution

Describe your task in a few words. We will study your situation, assess the legal and practical options and propose the next step based on your goals, documents and country.

Confidential · no obligations · answered by the relevant specialist

Or message us on WhatsApp or Telegram

Dmitry NagyInternational Tax Consultant, BRIDGES
Dmitry Nagy, International Tax Consultant, BRIDGES

Names and certain details have been changed to protect client confidentiality. The result described reflects one specific situation and is neither a public offer nor a guarantee of a similar outcome. Programme terms are stated as of 2026 and may change - please confirm current parameters with a BRIDGES consultant.