Home Breaking OAP Toke Makinwa’s Marriage Dissolved Over Hubby’s Alleged Adultery!

OAP Toke Makinwa’s Marriage Dissolved Over Hubby’s Alleged Adultery!

0
1002

It was all over between popular radio presenter, Omotoke Makinwa, and Maje Ayida on Thursday, when they finally removed L from Lover at a Lagos court.

An Igbosere High Court in Lagos dissolved their 3-year-old troubled marriage, citing husband’s adulterous lifestyle, says a News Agency of Nigeria (NAN) report.

Makinwa, is the co-host of the ‘Morning Drive’ on Rhythm 93.7FM, a blogger and an author.

She had on March 9, 2016, asked the court to dissolve the marriage on the grounds that the husband committed adultery.

Justice Morenike Obadina, while delivering judgment held that Ayida filed an answer to the petition but did not give oral evidence in support of it.

She said that the position of the law was settled as pleadings did not amount to evidence.

She ruled: “Pleadings on which no evidence was led are deemed abandoned. Therefore, Ayida’s evidence is deemed abandoned.

“The effect being that the petitioner’s evidence is unchallenged and not controverted.’’

The judge said the issue of cruelty which the petitioner (Makinwa) relied on was established because of the “mental and emotional stress” she was subjected to by her husband.

She said that Makinwa had sufficiently proven that the husband committed adultery and continued to flaunt his adulterous relationships even to her face.

Obadina further said, “I hold that the marriage has broken down on grounds of intolerable behaviour.

“I hereby pronounce a `Decree Nisi’ dissolving the marriage between Makinwa and Ayida which was administered at the Federal Marriage Registry, Ikoyi, Lagos, on Jan. 15, 2014.

“The order Nisi shall become absolute three months from today unless within that period sufficient cause is shown why it should not be made absolute.”

Makinwa had told the Court that her husband committed adultery with his mistress, Anita Solomon, adding that the relationship produced a child.

She said that since their marriage was contracted, the husband had “behaved in a way she could not reasonably be expected to continue to bear”.

She added that the husband was cruel towards her, and that their differences became irreconcilable.

During the trial, Makinwa testified in court and tendered some documents including their marriage certificate which were admitted in evidence.

In her testimony, she said that after their marriage was contracted in 2014, cohabitation with her husband ceased on Nov. 8, 2015, without any child from the marriage.

She also told the Court of an instance where her husband threatened separation and even drafted a separation agreement because she discovered that he bought a ticket for his mistress to travel to London.

The first respondent (Ayida) who replied to the petition when served, however, instructed his counsel, Mr T. O. Lawal, not to continue with the defense.

Ayida through his counsel, therefore, foreclosed all evidence.

The mistress (Solomon), who is the second respondent, refused to join issues with the petitioner.

Toke Makinwa and Maje

In simpler terms, here are some of the reasons she has filed for divorce from her hubby, Maje Ayida;

1. The lady (Anita Solomon) Maje Ayida cheated on her with delivered a baby boy in United Kingdom. She presently lives with him in Toke and Maje’s former matrimonial home.

2. Maje claimed to not have money to take care of her & pay their bills, but was able to pay for Anita’s upkeep and travel expenses to the UK to have their baby.

3. Following the birth of the child, Maje became physically and emotionally tied with his baby mama.

4. Prior to the scandal, Toke was meant to sign an endorsement deal worth N20 million with a telecommunications giant in Nigeria. However, following the widespread negative media publicity arising from Maje’s adultery, the company withdrew from the deal.

READT

5. Toke alleges that Maje continued in his adulterous acts after it became public and boasted on several occasions that he wished to have been married to someone else.

6. Maje took pride in doing whatever he desired, discussed his business dealings and took advice only from his baby mama.

7. Any slight complaint Toke made usually resulted in Maje going on a rant, seriously nagging and making use of vulgar abuse in the clear view of their domestic staff, church members, and neighbours.

8. She alleges that Maje also made threats to physically assault her. Living with him became uncomfortable.9. That due to the 1st Respondent’s (Maje) apparent lack of love and affection to the Petitioner (Toke), it has never been a concern to the 1st Respondent if the Petitioner is in a good state of health. Living with the 1st Respondent became disconsolate and terrifying making the home most uncomfortable and unconducive.

10. Sometime in December 2014 and when several entreaties from the Petitioner had failed, in order to exploit other means of saving her marriage the Petitioner invited some of her family members and in-laws in order to seek a resolution of the matter. Rather, than yield to the Petitioner’s plight, the 1st Respondent continued his adulterous relationship with 2nd Respondent (Anita), became more resolute in embarrassing and disrespecting, the Petitioner such that verbal abuse/nagging to the knowledge of all the people living in the neighborhood from the 1st Respondent became a routine affair. The Petitioner further tried to persevere and bore all the insults, emotional and psychological abuse of the 1st Respondent from December 2014 to 8th November 2015 when she could no longer tolerate same and was thus forced to leave her matrimonial home. The 2nd Respondent  presently lives with the 1st Respondent in their matrimonial home.

11. The adultery and irreconcilable differences have caused the irretrievable breakdown of the marriage between the Petitioner and the 1st Respondent, efforts at further reconciliation have failed and future attempts at reconciliation would be impracticable and not in the best interests of the Petitioner.

12. That from the foregoing, the 1st Respondent has behaved in such a way that the Petitioner cannot reasonably be expected to live together with him.

Exit mobile version