Seti v Danny [2001] SBHC 71; HC-CC 171 of 2001 (28 September 2001)

THE HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS

Civil Case No: 171 of 2001

SPENCER SETI

v

LIMA DANNY

Before: Frank O. Kabui, J.

ass="MsoNoMsoNormal" style="margin-top: 1; margin-bottom: 1"> Hearing: 28^th September 2001

Judgment: 28^th September 2001

Mrs. C. Titiulu for the Petitioner

Respondent not present

JUDGMENT

ote>

(Kabui, J): By Petition filed oled on 19^th July 2001, the Petitioner prays that his marriage with the Respondent be dissolved upon the ground that he and his wife have continuously lived apart for a period of more than five years. The ground upon which this Petition is based in section 5(1)(d) of the Islanders Divorce Act (Cap. 170). This ground was introduced by an Act of Parliament in 1998 (see No. 1 of 1998).

The Facts

The Petitioner and the Respondent were married on 21st March 1994 at Varu Village on Kolombangara Iara Island in the Western Province. The marriage was celebrated by a Pastor of the Seventh Day Adventist Church. The parties lived at Varu Village after the marriage. There are two children of the marriage. They are Jaylin Spencer born on 12^th December 1994 and Sabrina Spencer born on 21^st March 1996. There had been problems in the marriage and the Respondent told the Petitioner to go away. In about November 1995, the Petitioner left Varu Village and went to his village Tuku on Simbo Island. In about January 1996, the Petitioner left his village and went to Honiara where he worked for some time with his uncle in the construction business. In about June 1996, he joined the Royal Solomon Islands Police Force. He is now a Police Constable No. 574 stationed at Gizo Police Station. The Petitioner had attempted to reconcile with his wife but without much success. In 1998 he went to Gizo but was told by the relatives of his wife that her parents did not want to see him so he ended up going to his village on Simbo Island. In 1999, he transferred to Gizo but was posted at Munda, He wrote letters to his family but received no response. He went back to Gizo but saw neither his wife nor his children. He sent money and food to his family to support his two children but had never seen them. There is a maintenance order against him coupled with a separation order made by the Gizo Magistrate Court at the request of the Respondent. The Respondent had always sworn at him, shown him no respect, shown overhearing attitude towards him and finally told him to leave her village.

class="MsoNoMsoNormal"> Decision

ass="MsoNoMsoNormal">The Respondent was served with the Petition on 3^rd August 2001. She wased at Gizo at the Gizo Police Station by Constable Tonny Pany Panda. She for some unknown reason did not appear in Court this morning. Counsel for the Petitioner, Mrs. Titiulu, indicated to me that she would like to proceed in the absence of the Respondent. I agreed and allowed her to proceed.

The evidence clearly shows that at no time did the parties ever resume cohabitation. The attempts by thetioner to effect reconciliaciliation were rebuffed by the relatives and parents of his wife. His wife had never attempted reconciliation on her part. Instead, she sought maintenance and separation orders from the Gizo Magistrate against the Petitioner. It would appear that the parties had never met face to face since the Petitioner left Varu Village in 1995. The parties have clearly lived apart continuously for 5 years and 9 months. Is there a prospect of this marriage being resurrected from the dead. I do not think so. In response to a question I asked, the Petitioner said the marriage no longer had any chance of being saved. All his efforts in that direction had resulted in limbo. The Petitioner said that he had had enough and would wish to be free to live a normal life once again. This is a case where the marriage between the parties has irretrievably broken down. I repeat here what I said at page 7 in Silas Chan (Alias Chan Chee Yan) v Peggy Chan, Page (Alias Koo Yee Ling) (Civil Case No. 94/2001. That is to say

...“There is no longe pointpoint in keeping a marriage that is already dead for the sake of appeasing the community or the relatives. Let it buried and be forgotten”...&nt">

te>

I would therefore pronounce that the marriage betweenPetitioner and the Respondent be dissolved forthwith.with. A decree nisi will issue accordingly.

F. O. Kabui

Judge