What is the big deal about Court Marriage Part 2?

Property Settlement

Another reason people conduct statutory marriage is that there is the likelihood of settlement of property after divorce. No one prays for a divorce in their marriage, as the sole purpose of marriage is for the union to last forever.  However, we cannot deny the fact that some couples are not so lucky with the forever dream. Under the customary law of marriage, when the marriage is over, none of the parties, especially the woman, can lay claim to a particular property that was purchased by the other spouse.

This is not so with marriage under the Act. Under the old law, should the couple have a divorce in a Statutory marriage, the properties of the Marriage (properties acquired during the pendency of the marriage) are divided between the parties of the Marriage? Both parties would have to prove their contribution. We have cases of women being thrown out after spending a number of years in a marriage without a pin.  If the woman can prove that though her name is not on the document of the property, she made a financial contribution to the property, such property would be shared accordingly between both parties.  However, recently, the Supreme Court has held that if the parties to the marriage that the property was acquired during the pendency of the marriage, such property is subject to being shared. This would mean that nobody has to prove financial contribution in any way.

Damages for Adultery

Generally, adultery is seen as a taboo in every type of marriage and a ground for divorce. Under the Statutory marriage, the Court can grant a Petitioner’s desire to dissolve the marriage on the ground that the Respondent has been unfaithful. The difference between Statutory marriage and the other two types of marriages in this area is that the Court would only grant the divorce if the Petitioner can prove the commission of adultery and the petitioner finds it intolerable to live with the adulterous spouse. What I am trying to say is that the Petitioner cannot just come to court and say the Respondent is cheating on him/her. He/her must also be willing to prove that it has become intolerable to live with the respondent. If you ask me, the second part is not so easy, this is because the Petitioner has to prove the facts (situation, circumstance etc) that make it intolerable to live with the respondent. I once had a friend that held the view that cheating on a spouse once might not be enough for the petitioner to prove that he/she can no longer live with the Respondent. Sincerely, “intolerability” is subject to the Court.

However, if adultery is successfully proved, the Petitioner can seek damages against the person the respondent committed the adulterous act.

That is if Mrs Chidinma had an affair with Mike who is not her husband, and her husband was able to prove this before the court, her husband can ask for damages (in monetary compensation) against Mike and the same will be granted. This also goes vice versa.  Usually, when awarding damages, the court can take into consideration things like

1. the value of the spouse.
2. the injury to the spouse’s feeling/blow to the spouse’s honour
3. the fortune of the Co-Respondent (that is, the person who the act was committed with)
4. ignorance of the marital status (that is, did the co-respondent know that the cheating spouse was married.
5. the character of the spouse.

Take, for instance, Mr Emma was Chidinma’s husband, and they had four children, and last year, he discovered that Chidinma was having an affair with Mike. That two out of four were Mike’s kids. That everyone in the street knew that Chidinma was having this affair, even when he was ignorant. Do you by chance think that the Court would award damages in favour of Mr Emma against Mike?

Another example is that a Mr James decides to divorce his wife for over 15 years for some reason, and after the divorce, he proceeds to marry young Anita. If former Mrs James can prove that Mr James was having an affair with Anita during the pendency of her marriage and it is because of Anita that he divorced her, Mrs James is entitled to damages against Anita.

The list goes on and on. I mean there is name changing. When people marry under the Act, the woman is allowed to change her surname to that of her husband. The second part of the gist is that should a divorce occur, the woman cannot be forced to stop using the name of the man. It is a thing of choice. There are divorce cases where one of the prayers of the man before the court (one of the things the husband wants the Court to do for him) is to order the wife to stop answering his name. Maybe he is a big politician, or a big name in a particular industry and so on. Such prayers are not always granted. This is because the woman is allowed to retain the name she decides to.

I believe that these few reasons will help you consider if you want to consider statutory marriage or just stick with the customary law marriage rite of your people.