[ad_1]
Grade A Customary Court, Mapo, Ibadan, Oyo State has dissolved the 10-year-old wedlock between a couple, Ola Oyinlola and Lawal Oyinlola due to lack of compatibility.
Ola who approached the court complained of lack of care and neglect of her and their children by her husband which led to the death of two of the children.
According to the plaintiff, the defendant started beating her a month after they got married and didn’t desist from this habit when she was pregnant.
Ola stated that she walked out of their marriage after Lawal frustrated her.
The plaintiff pleaded for custody of their children and an order mandating the defendant to be responsible for their welfare.
Lawal, though served a hearing notice, was absent in court.
Ola, in her evidence, said, “Lawal and I had our traditional wedding in October 2022. I was looking forward to a blissful relationship but this was not the case.
“Lawal started beating me the month after we got married.
“He was reckless is his dealings with me and always left me bitter and sour.
“I was traumatized five months into my first pregnancy as a result of my husband’s maltreatment of me and therefore, went back to my parents who gave me proper care.
“I had our baby in my parents’ house, but he refused that I returned to his house for the naming ceremony.
“I returned to his house after our parents mediated in our differences, but he refused to give me adequate care. This made me return again to my parents.
“Lawal didn’t check on me and our child for two years.
“I later moved back to his house and we had a baby boy who later died due to lack of care.
“Lawal hardly made provision for our feeding and clothing. It was my parents who always came to our aid.
“We had two other children after the first two, but we lost one of them again during sickness.
“I decided to walk out of our marriage after these harrowing experiences and started living on my own.
“I plead with this honourable court to grant me custody of our children, because my husband is indifferent to their wellbeing.
“I further pray the court to rule that Lawal be in charge of their welfare.”
The court president, Mrs S.M. Akintayo, in her judgment, stated that the defendant was duly served a hearing notice to afford him to cross examine the plaintiff and for defense, but that he chose to absent himself from court.
The defence was therefore fore closed.
Akintayo dissolved their union stating that both had gone their different ways for 10 years because they were not compatible.
She granted the plaintiff custody of their children and ordered the defendant to be responsible for their welfare.
[ad_2]
