A court has ordered a man to part ways with his wife after finding that he was unavailable for her and their only child.
The court dissolved the five-year marriage and ordered the man to be paying Sh5,000 every month for the minor’s upkeep.
The man codenamed BAR married WNO under the Islamic religion on January 16, 2018. Following the marriage, the two got an only child.
In her case, WNO lamented that the Ugandan national, who lives in Busia, used to vanish to Uganda and would not provide for them for weeks.
According to her, whenever BAR returned, he would be abusive whenever she inquired where he was and why he had not taken care of them.
She told the court that in early 2022, he ordered that she returns to her parents.
“The respondent later on sent a boda boda person (motorcyclist) several times bringing all her belongings which were at the matrimonial home,” the woman testified.
The woman stated that she raised the issue with the man’s parents at Kasese in the Republic of Uganda, but he did not show any interest in settling the dispute.
As a result, WNO testified that her parents-in-law told her not to bother with their son as he was no longer interested in her and instead concentrate on her life and the minor.
Stay informed. Subscribe to our newsletter
Even after being invited to file his side of the story by the court, the man did not file a response.
The Kadhi, Idris Nyaboga, said that it would be unfair for the man to hold on to the woman even when he had no interest in her.
“When it happens that the husband does not like his wife for some reason or no reason at all, he may either divorce her fairly or bear with her and retain her fairly and justly. He should not retain her with an intention to oppress her or deny her right to remarry a person of her choice,” said Nyaboga.
The Kadhi was of the view that BAR’s behavior towards WNO amounted to cruelty. He added that vanishing on her was an indication that he just wanted to keep her exasperated.
"The respondent’s cruelty without remorse to his family and at the same time not freeing her from the subsistent marriage is an indication of his ill intention of frustrating the petitioner. From the evidence adduced, I’m satisfied that the petitioner has proved her case according to the required standard,” he ruled.