Gusi v Gusi [2008] PGDC 25; DC688 (4 April 2008)

DC688

PAPUA NEW GUINEA
[IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF JUSTICE
SITTING IN ITS FAMILY JURISDICTION]

FC 87 Of 2008

BETWEEN:

ALEX GUSI
Complainant

AND:

DAIMA GUSI
First Defendant

AND:

JOHN PETER
Second Defendant

Port Moresby: Ms. Nerrie Eliakim
2008: 04th April

REASON FOR DECISION

1. The Complainant has filed a summons against the Defendants for Adultery pursuant to s. 4 (1) (c) of the Adultery and Enticement Act. In support, Complainant has sworn an affidavit on 18th February, 2008.

2. It is not disputed that the Complainant and the first Defendant have an existing legal marriage under custom since 1991. From this relationship, they together have five (5) children. The Complainant has taken their children from Port Moresby back to Fane Village, Goilala District sometimes in 2007.

3. When parties first appeared before this Court on 25th March, 2008, the first Defendant indicated to the Court that she was willing to go back to the Complainant and their children. The Court then adjourned this case to 27th March, 2008, to enable the second Defendant to appear.

4. On 27th March, 2008, the Defendants admitted to having entered into a sexual relationship out of which a child has been conceived. The second Defendant was also aware that the first Defendant was a married woman. However, the Court also takes into consideration the first Defendant’s oral statement in Court which the Complainant did not dispute. She stated that the Defendant had left her and their children with his relatives here in Port Moresby in August, 2005 and went to his village where he stayed for the next two (2) years or so. She also stated that he was living with another woman there and as such, she entered into a relationship with the second Defendant. (The Court notes that the Defendant does not deny nor admit that he was living with another woman). He only returned to his family in Port Moresby early this year. In response, the Complainant said that even when he was away, he was still supporting them financially. He also stated that he had planned to return to Port Moresby in 2007, but he had some threats from the second Defendant and therefore did not come until early this year.

5. It is the Court’s opinion that the both are equally at fault. The Complainant, as the head of the family and husband, should always be able to cater for his family through thick and thin, not just finically but be there for them physically. Instead, he decided to desert them in Port Moresby for well over two (2) years without any justifiable explanation. As to the first Defendant, if the Complainant was finically supporting her and the children, then no reasonable explanation has been given to the Court as to why she did what she did. Also the second Defendant was aware that the first Defendant was married and the Complainant also bore his children.

6. Taking into consideration the facts surrounding this case, the court makes the following orders:

1. The Court in finding that the Defendants have committed Adultery thinks it fair that they pay some form of compensation to the Complainant. Defendants are hereby ordered to compensate the Complainant K150.00 each within two (2) month from today.
   

Complainant: Present
Defendant: Present