Adultery: Court dissolves marriage of 9 years

A Customary Court, sitting in Maroko Street, Ondo town, headquarters of Ondo West Local Government Area of the State, has dissolved a nine-year old marriage, between one Mr. Niyi Olorunsola and his wife Simiatu.
Olorunsola, a 30-year-old farmer and resident of Dejori village, along Laje road in Ondo town, had earlier approached the court seeking the dissolution of the union over allegation of adultery, drunkenness, infidelity, lack of respect to him and his family, lack of love, fighting and lack of proper care, against his estranged wife.
The petitioner, who was in the court in company of his friend and family, prayed the court to grant him the request. He told the court that his wife had on several occasions, threatened to kill him, the development, which he said had made the Baale and people of Dejori community, to send them away from the community.
He told the court that his intention to invite two witnesses; one of whom he said was in court, stating several instances to support his claims.
In her defence, Simiatu, urged the court to dismiss all allegation levied against her by her husband. She said she has no intention to continue with the relationship, and therefore, prayed the court to dissolve the marriage saying the action would give her another opportunity to marry anybody of her choice.
According to her, incompatibility, lack of care for the family welfare and reckless life of her husband to provide for the education of the only child produced by the marriage, has always been subject of controversy between them.
After listening to both parties, the President of the court, Elder David Akinmusere, expressed worries over the age of the only child produced by the marriage, who is 8-years and still in primary three.
He noted that this has proven that the petitioner is irresponsible to his duties as a father. He however, dissolved the marriage and added that since the relationship is an association and no dowry was paid, both parties are free to marry anybody of their choices anytime.
He also ruled that the child should be in the custody of the father, urging them that whoever was not satisfied with the judgment should appeal before seven days.