Omg! What a wicked Wife!:My wife denies me of sex, 75-yr-old man tells court

Firstclass newsline learnt that an Ado-Ekiti customary court,
yesterday, dissolved the 26-year marriage between a bricklayer, James
Kayode Oguntuase and his wife, Felicia, over sexual starvation and
sundry acts.
Oguntuase, 75, had sued Felicia, 53, a trader, to court, accusing her
of denying him sex, adultery, stealing and stubbornness, allegations
which the respondent denied.
The petitioner told the court that he had caught his wife with three
different men, adding that she had aborted three pregnancies for her
lovers.
Oguntuase also alleged that his estranged wife stole N35,000 belonging
to him, being money meant for the purchase of carpentry materials,
revealing that he had dragged his wife to court in 2013 on account of
alleged sexual escapades.
He prayed the court for the custody of the children, promising to be
responsible for their upkeep
The union was blessed with six children, including Caroline, 25;
Peter, 23; Akin, 18; Ife, 15; Rachel, 12; and Tolulope, 6.
'Why I refused him sex'
However, the wife, in her response, said she denied the petitioner
sex on grounds of ill-health, and also denied the allegations of
adultery and stealing.
She urged the court not to dissolve the union.
Court president, Joseph Ogunsemi, dissolved the union, saying the
marriage had broken down irretrievably as the two parties failed to
avail themselves of the opportunity given to settle the dispute
amicably.
The court also awarded custody of the children below the age of 18 to
the petitioner, while Peter and Akin, who are above 18 are free to
decide where to live.
The petitioner was also ordered by the court to arrange for an
alternative accommodation for the respondent, the cost of which should
not be more than N60,000 and not less than N48,000 per annum.
The court ordered that the petitioner should pay for two years rent
for the new accommodation for the respondent and he is also expected
to bear the cost of transporting her luggage to the new place.
The court ordered the respondent to always assist the petitioner in
the upkeep of the under-aged children, while she should be allowed
access to them between 7a.m. and 6p.m. on the day she chooses to
visit.
Firstclassnewsline.net