FCT High Court, Maitama, on Tuesday dissolved the marriage between Eseoghene Njoku and her husband Ifeanyi Njoku, due to irreconcilable differences, persistent arguments and quarrels.
Petition for marriage divorce
Justice Jude Okeke, while delivering judgment on the petition filed by Eseoghene praying the court for the dissolution of her marriage to her husband, held that the marriage has broken down irretrievably.
He held that the court was satisfied that the petitioner had satisfied the grounds provided for dissolution of marriage under Sections 15 (2) and 16 of the Matrimonial Causes Act.
“In the circumstance, this petition succeeds, and in the light of this, it is declared that the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent, contracted under the Marriage Act at the Abuja Municipal Area Council Marriage Registry on Oct. 31, 2008, has broken down irretrievably.
“As regards the children of the marriage, the petitioner having testified that the children have been in her custody and the respondent has access to them and both bear the financial burden together, the status quo shall remain.
“The respondent having stated that he is not contesting any of the reliefs sought in the petition, the custody of the children should be granted to the petitioner, with right of access to the respondent,’’ Okeke held.
The judge held that the evidence of the petitioner was that after the couples were married on Oct. 31, 2008, they lived together as husband and wife in their home.
He noted that due to irreconcilable differences, particularly persistent quarrels and arguments, the petitioner claimed she suffered emotional trauma and breakdown and consequently resigned from her job.
Okeke noted also that the petitioner on Sept. 1, 2012, left her matrimonial home with her two children and efforts by their families to reconcile them failed.
He added that the petitioner said she does not want to be married to the respondent anymore, hence, the marriage should be dissolved.
Okeke observed that the respondent via a letter to the court, said that he has no objection to the reliefs in the petition, granted by the court.
He added that as a result of this, the respondent did not appear in court. (NAN)