ADO-Ekiti 75-year old bricklayer James Kayode Oguntuase has succeeded in getting a customary court to annul his 26-year marriage after his wife Felicia decided to go on strike and refuse him sex.  

According to Mr Oguntuase, his wife, Felicia, was guilty of sexual starvation and other sundry acts, which made their marriage no longer possible. He had sued Felicia, 53, a trader, accusing her of denying him sex, adultery, stealing and stubbornness, allegations which the respondent denied. 

However, 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. Mr Oguntuase also alleged that his estranged wife stole N35,000 (£115)  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. 

Mr Oguntuase prayed the court for the custody of the children, promising to be responsible for their upkeep. Their union was blessed with six children, including Caroline 25, Peter 23, Akin 18, Ife 15, Rachel 12 and Tolulope 6. 

However, in her response, Felicia said she denied the petitioner sex on the grounds of ill-health and also denied the allegations of adultery and stealing. She urged the court not to dissolve the union but court president, Joseph Ogunsemi, did, saying the marriage had broken down irretrievably as the two parties failed to avail themselves of the opportunity given to settle the dispute amicably. 

In addition, 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. Mr Oguntuase was also ordered by the court to arrange for an alternative accommodation for his wife, the cost of which should not be more than N60,000 (£196) and not less than N48,000 (£157) per annum. 

Furthermore, 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 then 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 7am and 6pm on the day she chooses to visit.