Sadia had petitioned the Court to dissolve her marriage over allegations that he had stolen her underwear for ritual.

She told Chief Ademola Odunade, the President of the court, that she feared that her life might be in perpetual danger if she continued to live under the same roof “with a man planning to use me for something diabolic”.

Sadia added that her husband’s attitude had made the marriage “so miserable and unattractive to me”.

“When the ill-treatment reached its peak, I discovered that my underwear suddenly got missing. I checked everywhere but did not see it. He also denied ever seeing it.

“Three days later, the missing underwear resurfaced where I had checked over and over and I made him realise his evil intention toward me.

“Only God knows what would have happened or might still happen to me because I have made it clear to him that I will not continue with the relationship.

“From day one when I got married to him, he has not been responsible.

“Even during my pregnancy and after, he never showed me care.

“Despite his irresponsibility, he usually attempt to rape me even when I’m not in the mood and I reported him to his parents.

“Besides, Azeez has been monitoring me all over the place,” Sadia stated.

Under cross examination, Azeez refuted all the allegations leveled against him.

Azeez claimed that the wife had continued to plunge him into debt.

“Sadia does not wish me well; all the money that I was supposed to spend on my business usually fall into her hands.

“Worse still, she always return home around midnight.

“In fact, Sadia’s usual late homecoming affected our child negatively; his teachers told us that he sleeps when other children are learning.

“Most of the time, I buy food to eat when she refuses to cook.

“Every now and then, she nags and packs in and out of the house,” Azeez alleged.

Odunade, in his judgement, held that there was no more love between the duo and pronounced the marriage dissolved “in the interest of peace and harmony”.

He granted custody of the only child produced by the union to the plaintiff, and ordered the defendant to pay N5,000 monthly for the child’s feeding, in addition to being responsible for his education and basic welfare. (NAN)