An Ado-Ekiti Customary Court, on Thursday, dissolved the 16 years marriage between Mr Emmanuel Jegede and his wife, Olubunmi, both clergymen.
The marriage was dissolved on the grounds of threat to life, provocation, stubbornness, lies and adultery.
The petitioner, Mr Emmanuel Jegede, 41, a clergyman, a resident at Irewumi quarters, opposite Bawa Estate, Ado-Ekiti, told the court that the respondent was arrogant, lazy, stubborn and unsupportive.
He explained that the respondent, who gave birth to three children for him, was not willing to work to assist him in taking care of the children’s welfare.
Emmanuel said that she was the only one responsible for the family upkeep including the education of the children.
The parties have since January 2016, stopped living together, as the petitioner had remarried a new wife.
The respondent, Mrs Olubunmi Jegede, 39, a prophetess, trader and resident at No 31, Ifesowapo quarters, off Nova Road, Ado-Ekiti, denied all the allegations levelled against her.
She alleged that the petitioner was an adulterous man and that in 2008 alone, he committed adultery with five women in their church.
The respondent added that she even caught more women with the petitioner in their parish.
The mother of three children told the court that for two years, the petitioner abandoned her and the children.
She said the petitioner preferred to drink beer to stupor and smoke cigarettes instead of taking good care of her and the children.
Olubunmi said she was responsible for the school fees of their second child, Elizabeth, 6, since 2015 to date.
She consented to the decision of the petitioner that the court should dissolve their marriage.
The respondent, however, prayed the court to award the custody of her three children to her for proper care.
She awarded the custody of the three children to the respondent for proper care.
Akomolede ruled that the petitioner would be paying N2, 500 as feeding allowance on each of the three children, beginning on or before Nov. 30 through the court registry.
She further ruled that the petitioner would be responsible for the education of the children at all levels.
However, the court granted the petitioner, unrestricted access to his children between the hours of 8 a.m. and 6 p.m.