Prosecuting lawyers have described a 42-year-old man accused of raping, assaulting and threatening to kill and cause serious harm to his wife, as a fantasist.
The man denies the offences which are alleged to have happened between May and August 2014.
He was charged with seven offences, but the jury was directed today to find the man not guilty of threatening to kill his wife on 8 June 2014.
The 11 men and one woman on the jury have heard closing speeches from prosecution and defence lawyers.
Ms Justice Isobel Kennedy told the jurors their verdict must be unanimous.
She said if they concluded that what the man said was probably true, then they must acquit him. She said if they found it might reasonably be true they had to acquit him.
Ms Justice Kennedy said even if they did not believe what the man said, they still had to go back and consider the prosecution case in full. She told the jurors it was for them to sift through the evidence on the basis of their common sense.
She said they must look at the evidence coldly and dispassionately.
Any thoughts of prejudice must not enter their deliberations, she said. She added they must not make any distinction as to where a person lives or where they come from.
The judge told the jurors they must consider the case solely on the evidence they heard in court. She also told them that the fact that the man had pleaded guilty to assaulting his wife with a hammer did not mean he was guilty of any other offence.
The judge will summarise the evidence for the jurors in the morning and they are then expected to begin considering their verdicts.
Prosecuting counsel Mary Rose Gearty told the jurors they had heard two very different versions of what happened in May, June and August 2014.
She said they had heard two sides of how a marriage broke down but the man and woman were in love and did have a good relationship.
At some point they loved each other and had loved each other enough to get married and have a child, she added.
She said this was something the jury should think about when considering why the woman did not leave.
The jurors had heard evidence about the employment history of both the man and his wife, Ms Gearty had said.
He had lost his job at one point, whereas her career was going from strength to strength and this was a stress in the marriage.
Ms Gearty said they had also heard the man's version of his relationship with his wife's family.
She said the man had tried to create some kind of animosity between himself and his wife's family to explain why the woman's parents had both given evidence that they had heard him threatening to kill their daughter.
She said the man had claimed his father in law was deaf.
Ms Gearty said the jurors had heard the woman's father give evidence and one thing they could have no doubt about was that he was not deaf.
She told the jurors it was not black and white - the couple had brought a child into the world and were trying to give their marriage another try in early 2014.
Was it possible that the woman and all of her family were lying about their relationship with the man, she asked.
Ms Gearty said the man had claimed he pushed his wife on May 2 2014 and that she had hit her head on a kitchen cupboard.
He denied headbutting her. But she told them that the woman, who was not very tall, would have had to jump and pirouette in order to cut her nose in the way it was cut.
Ms Gearty said that when it came to the night of the alleged rape, the two versions of events completely diverged.
The woman had told the court that her husband threatened her with a knife and then ordered her upstairs where he forced her to have sex.
The man said he was holding a butter knife, he told his wife to go upstairs and he stayed downstairs on his computer sending out his CV, sending emails and on social media.
Ms Gearty said these were two starkly different versions of what happened.
She said the woman had not made a formal garda complaint of rape until October that year but she had described the incident in family law proceedings in the district court on 3 June.
Ms Gearty told the jury they faced a stark choice - one of the witnesses was a complete fantasist.
She said the prosecution suggested it was not the victim, adding that the man would say and do anything to try to persuade the jury that he did not rape his wife.
He is the fantasist in this case she said, not the victim.
The man's defence counsel, Padraig Dwyer told the jurors they must reach an objective decision.
He told them they must free their minds from bias and that this was a multi-cultural society and he told them they must give the man, who is not originally from Ireland, the kind of trial they would hope any relative of theirs would receive in his country.
He said in this case they did not have the benefit of much independent evidence: the prosecution had not called the manager of the creche the couple's child was attending or the garda who took a statement from the woman about an alleged threat on June 9 2014.
Mr Dwyer said there were certain deficiencies in the evidence in the case.
He said the wife's evidence was inconsistent, incredible and a fantasy.
He said she left out a lot of detail where one would expect there to be more detail.
Mr Dwyer said the problems in the marriage were not unique problems.
He said they should not approach the case on the basis that they liked the husband or the wife more.
He urged them to look at the motive in this case - he said the woman might be motivated by issues surrounding the custody of their child, the continued occupation of the house, or accelerating any agenda she had to separate the child from his father.
He said she could be motivated by revenge or anger or by a misinterpretation of what happened in the bedroom in May 2014.
He told them that if they found the wife's testimony to be incredible, they should not convict his client.
Mr Dwyer said life was not black and white. He said a person could not want to have sexual intercourse but could still consent to it.
Even in circumstances where couples break up, and where the air was filled with sadness, anxiety or misery, they may still have consensual sex.
He told the jury there was nothing inconsistent in finding that the man did threaten his wife with a knife but that she later consented to sex.
Mr Dwyer said gardaí had not sought CCTV footage from premises in the city centre near where the man was alleged to have made a threat to his wife in early August 2014.
He said the prosecution had not called any medical evidence about the alleged headbutt.
The woman's injury was much more consistent with being pushed and hitting her head off something hard rather than a head butt by a taller person, he added.
He said the woman's evidence was weak. He said her evidence that she had come back to find her husband smoking a cigarette after having poured lighter fluid around the house was fantastic.
He accused the woman of throwing this allegation into the trial to make his client look like a homicidal, suicidal maniac.
The woman's recollection of the detail of the night of the alleged rape was poor, because she was not telling the truth, Mr Dwyer said.
He said she was a woman who was economical with the truth and made things up when it suited her.
He said the fact that she left their child with her husband, the morning after the alleged rape did not square with her portrayal of her husband as dangerous and out of control.
Mr Dwyer said there was a lot of bitterness between the couple.
He said this man had pleaded guilty to a very serious assault.
But he asked the jury not to judge him on something he did a number of months after the alleged offence of rape.
He said there were a lot of motives to lie in this case and he told the jurors there was much about the woman's testimony that should cause the jurors to reject her evidence and record not guilty verdicts in relation to these allegations.
