Naia v Kanapala [2001] SBHC 55; HC-CC 042 of 2001 (13 August 2001)

class="MsoNormal"rmal" align="center" style="text-align: center; margin-top: 1; margin-bottom: 1"> HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS

Civil Case No: 42 of 200

MYRTLE NAIA

v

WINSTNAPALA

High Court Of Solomon Islands

Before: F.O. Kabui, J

Civil Case No: 42 of 2000

Hearing: 10^th August 2001

Judgment: 13^th August 2001

C. B. Titiulu for the Petitioner

P Watts for the Respondent

p class="Mso="MsoNormal" style="margin-top: 1; margin-bottom: 1"> (Kabui, J): This is a Petition by the Petitioner praying that her marriage with the Respondent be dissolved on the ground of adultery committed by the Respondent during their marriage. The parties were married on or about 23^rd July, 1972 at Dovele, Vella La Vella in the Western Province. They lived at Dovele until 1981 when they moved to Honiara and lived at King George School. There are six children of the marriage four of whom are adults. Two of the children are under age of 18 years. The Respondent committed adultery on two previous occasions but had been forgiven by the Petitioner. The third time, the Respondent committed adultery, the Petitioner left the matrimonial home because the Co-respondent had moved in and lived with the Respondent as husband and wife. There is one child of that adulterous union. The Co-respondent is now dead.

The Petitioner Discretionary Statement

<

By this Statement, the Petitioner admitted adultery committed wied with another person. I take this into account although this Petition was not opposed at the hearing.

Dissolution of Marriage

ass="Mso="MsoNormal" style="margin-top: 1; margin-bottom: 1"> The parties had lived apart since 1998. There is no evidence that the parties s had attempted to reconcile and to co-habit again as husband and wife. In my view, it is better to untie the marriage knot so that the parties can live separate lives as intended by them. The fact that the Respondent did not oppose the Petition, apart from being an admission of adultery on his part, also shows his wish that the marriage be dissolved. The Petitioner on her part does not wish to live again with the Respondent. The only conclusion I reach is that the marriage should be dissolved. I therefore pronounce that the marriage between the Petitioner and the Respondent be dissolved fo forthwith. Decree nisi will be drawn up and signed accordingly. Parties will meet their costs.

lass="MsoNormal"rmal" mal" style="margin-top: 1; margin-bottom: 1" align="center"> F. O. Kabui

Judge