Toata v Toata [1999] SBHC 100; HC-CC 222 of 1999 (1 October 1999)

class="MsoNormal" aal" align="center" style="text-align: center; margin-top: 0; margin-bottom: 0"> HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS

HC-CC No. 222 of 1999

DOROTHY TOApan>

-v-

class="Mss="MsoNormal" align="center" style="text-align: center; margin-top: 0; margin-bottom: 0"> JOHN TOATA

>

class="MsoNoMsoNormal" style="margin-top: 0; margin-bottom: 0"> High Court of Solomon Islands
(KABUI, J)
Civil Case No. No. 222 of 1999

Hearing: 30th September, 1999
Judgment: 1 October 1999

ass="MsoNoMsoNormal" style="margin-top: 0; margin-bottom: 0"> F Wale for the Petitioner
Respondent in Person

JUDGMENT

(F.O. Kabui, J): This is a Petition for the dissolution of marriage filed by the Petitioner on 18 June 1999 on the ground of cruelty against her by her husband the Respondent. The Petition was not contested by the Respondent in Court. As the Respondent was not legally represented, I further explained to him the implications of his stand not to contest the Petition. Being satisfied that the Respondent understood what he was doing, the Petitioner gave her evidence on oath from the witness-box without challenge from the Respondent.

The Facts

The parties were married November 1988 at the Central Magistrates Court in Hoin Honiara. There are 4 children to the marriage. They are Jackson Toata, a little over 10 years, Kylie Toata, 9 years, Beauty Toata, 7 years and Jasimine Toata, 4 years. The acts of cruelty were committed in June, 1989 and in April and May 1997. These acts of violence did result in body injuries to the Petitioner and required medical treatment. On 6 June 1997, the Petitioner obtained the following orders from the Central Magistrates Court in Honiara against the Respondent-

1. &nbs; &nbbsp; &nbsp Rese Respondent or hior his agents be restrained from interfering or molesting the Petitioner;

0">

lass="MsoNoMsoNormal" style="text-indent: -34.9pt; margin-left: 70.9pt; margin-top: 0; margin-bottom: 0"> 2. & &nbsp &nbp; The Reentnde restrained fred from entering the work place of the Petitioner or her residence;

: 0">

3. &nbp; &nnbsp; &nbse chie children of the the marriage be in custody of the Petitioner in the interim;

">

4. & p; &nsp; Tsp; The Respondent pantenintenance of $60.00 per fortnight for the benefit of the children.

The parties have separated since this Court Order was made by the Magistrate te Court. However, despite the Court Order 3 above regarding custody of the children being in favour of the Petitioner, she has since passed custody voluntarily to the Respondent according to custom practice.

<

This is obviously a case for the dition of the marriage as pras prayed for by the Petitioner. I accordingly pronounce a decree of divorce and declare that this marriage be dissolved after 3 months have expired from the date hereof. I hereby grant a decree nisi accordingly. The question of custody is happily resolved by the parties themselves. The Petitioner says she is happy with the present arrangement whereby the children are in the custody of their father provided she can have access to them any time. The Respondent says that it is vital that the children see their mother any time they wish. He is very frank about this and absolutely agrees with the Petitioner's wish in this regard. I therefore order with their consent that the Respondent have custody of the children with full access to the Petitioner as may be agreed between them. The matter of where "the best interest of the children" consideration lies does not arise in this case and it is therefore assumed that all will be well. The orders of this Court therefore are-

1. ;&nbssp;&nbs;&nbs; Thp; That the marriageissodissolved in terms of section 11 of the Islanders' Divorce Act (Cap. 170).

2. &nsp; & &nbhat custody oody of the the children of the marriage be placed in the Respondent with full access to the Petitioner. I accordingly vary Or ve ofMagis Courthat extent.span>

bsp; &nnsp;& Tsp;e here wirl be l be no order as to costs.

F.O. Kabui
br> Judge