‘HE CAN’T HAVE IT WHENEVER HE WANTS’, WIFE TELLS COURT
‘HE CAN’T HAVE IT WHENEVER HE WANTS’, WIFE TELLS COURT
A 21-YEAR-OLD marriage has collapsed after a Livingstone woman accused her husband of persistent sexual demands.
Susan Zulu, 42, petitioned for divorce from her husband, Eric Ngoma, 44, before Livingstone Local Court A1.
Principal Presiding Local Court Magistrate Mubita Mubiana heard that Zulu’s grievances centred on her husband’s demands for sex.
Zulu argued that paying traditional marriage requirements did not give her husband unlimited rights over her body.
“Just because he has paid the traditional marriage requirements does not give him the right to have sex whenever he wants,” Zulu said.
She told the court that the issue had severely strained the marriage and made peaceful cohabitation impossible.
But Ngoma painted a different picture, accusing his wife of being disrespectful and difficult.
He said the couple married in 2005, but their relationship had deteriorated because of Zulu’s behaviour.
“She is very sarcastic to me as a husband. She speaks loudly and differently to the children,” Ngoma said.
Ngoma also accused Zulu of making decisions concerning their children without consulting him
He cited an incident in which she allegedly transferred one of their children to another school without his consent.
He further complained that she was not adequately supporting him in running the home and had repeatedly failed to fulfil her responsibilities towards the children.
“A woman who fails to teach her own children is not good,” he said.
Ngoma also raised concerns about Zulu’s church and business commitments, alleging that she spent most Saturdays and Sundays at church instead of contributing to household income.
He said he had encouraged her to engage in income-generating activities rather than travelling to Zimbabwe for trade, but claimed she did little to assist him.
After hearing both parties, Magistrate Mubiana dissolved the marriage.
The court ordered Ngoma to pay K600 monthly maintenance for each eligible child.
The magistrate clarified that children below the age of 17 were eligible for support, while those above that age fell outside the maintenance order.
The ruling brought to an end the union that began in 2005