A motorcyclist, Sola Asiobe, on Wednesday told a Mapo Grade ‘A’ Customary Court in Ibadan that his wife, Opeyemi was an unrepentant adulterer, asking the court to seperate them.
Asiobe gave the consent on Wednesday during his counter argument against his wife’s accusation of lack of care and constant domestic violence against her.
He added that Opeyemi had always provoked him to anger by involving in extra marital affairs especially with male co-tenants.
- FX: Reduce foreign trips, religious pilgrimages, Lagos Assembly tells Tinubu
- Fire razes Kwara High Court building
“My lord, how can I ever bear seeing a barber who was also a tenant in the same house sleeping with my wife?
“As if that was not enough, Opeyemi is also dating another man known as Sunkanmi,” he said.
Earlier, Opeyemi who is a medicine dealer stated that she filed the suit in order to have a breathing space from her husband’s lack of care and agonising battery.
“My lord, he is fond of falsely accusing me of infidelity.He did not pay any bride price on me.
“Asiobe has been a threat to my life, please, stop him from coming to my shop or anywhere I am,” Opeyemi pleaded with the court.
The petitioner further argued that she truly abandoned the last child between both of them since age three because the landlord of the house gave them notice to quit his house.
Opeyemi explained that the child truly belonged to Asiobe.
She also contended that her mother did not beat up Asiobe’s mother as the respondent earlier alleged.
Delivering judgment, the President of the court Mrs S.M. Akintayo held that there was no marriage to be dissolved between the petitioner and the respondent because their union was not valid in the first place.
Citing various portions of the law to support her judgment, Akintayo stated that there must be payment of bride price, presentation of gifts and formal hand over of the bride for any traditional marriage to be considered as been valid.
The court president noted that none of the above stated requirements were mentioned by the duo in their arguments.
Lastly, the court granted the order restraining the respondent from disturbing, harassing and interfering in the personal life of the petitioner henceforth
