₦airaland Forum

LordIsaac:
Chaos. People will no longer be careful in choosing life partners. Even with the difficulty, see what we have!

I think they would be carefuler since all their wedding preparation things would be a waste

Dtruthspeaker:

My brother they would still make money as the couple still need to go to court to settle rights and liabilities and ownership of property disputes.

How can you have divorce before all these? It is like putting the cart before the horse. These things can prevent divorce

Dtruthspeaker:
Women always have Chikes for one side. If no be say dat guy open Edohor mess we for know?

We for no know no o brother. O su mi.

Dtruthspeaker:
This is where you see the Ajayi case is standing on and now see the confusion it is causing.

No Sir. My comment is in no way a direct reflection of the Ajayi case.

I am talking of a married couple who decided to call it quits and go their separate ways without court involvement.

Ajayi and his wife never had that arrangement.

As how naw

AllBlack:
No Sir. My comment is in no way a direct reflection of the Ajayi case.

I am talking of a married couple who decided to call it quits and go their separate ways without court involvement.

Ajayi and his wife never had that arrangement.

Did the report not say that they lived apart for a very long time (10yrs which is why she even naturally thought that he was divorced?


2. Helen Prest (the long-term concubine)
Helen Prest met Dr Ajayi after he had reportedly lived at the Sheraton Hotel for about 10 years following his departure from the matrimonial home. She spent approximately 25 years living with him as his companion and partner, was publicly known as "Mrs Helen Prest-Ajayi,"

This is known as constructive/implied divorce which the court ought to recognise.

And all this would have been voided if only he could have just walked into the marriage registry (divorce section) fill in the forms for divorce and wait 21 days. Shikena

JoeEeL:
We for no know no o brother. O su mi.

O sumi gaaan!

QuinQQ:
How can you have divorce before all these? It is like putting the cart before the horse. These things can prevent divorce

Just like marriage takes place usually even before the couples start having rights and liabilities, so also divorce can take place and then like psqaure brothers who "divorced" first, they can still sue each other for their rights and liabilities.

So, divorce is separable from determining the rights and liabilities of the former couple

abisola85:
As how naw

Simple na.

The registry will just use another office and call it divorce section and it will have tables and chairs and that their big book where they would register divorces just like they register marriages! You see am now?

Dtruthspeaker:
O sumi gaaan!

Haha

Dtruthspeaker:
Just like marriage takes place usually even before the couples start having rights and liabilities, so also divorce can take place and then like psqaure brothers who "divorced" first, they can still sue each other for their rights and liabilities.

So, divorce is separable from determining the rights and liabilities of the former couple

See, the idea is to PREVENT divorce because people who want divorce today may not want it tomorrow. So all that process gives time for tempers to cool and time for reconciliation before divorce becomes final

Dtruthspeaker:
Did the report not say that they lived apart for a very long time (10yrs which is why she even naturally thought that he was divorced?

Who cares what she thought or was thinking?

Dtruthspeaker:
This case
https://www.nairaland.com/8622429/church-expels-new-bride-refusing/4#139829474

Just gave me this idea.

You see, marriage is a simple thing so divorce too should be simple for both of them are based on the Rights and Consents of the couple, primarily.

So if i. 21 days (if my memory serves me right) a couple can become husband and wife in the marriage registry then it should be that in 21 days the couple can become decoupled and single again.

The marriage registry should also be the divorce registry.

And all it takes is for the couple to go through the same process they used for marrying only this time the notice would be stating "divorce". And in the end they would be given a certificate of divorce. Shikena.

No need for lengthy costly divorce proceedings.

Court cases should be for issues that arose in the marriage.

And with this people trapped into marriage can quickly and easily run out. Marriage should never be by force and the parties should always be free to exit when they need to.

Besides maybe marital domestic violence would reduce and maybe people will be more cautious when they get married.

How una see am?

Divorce is not as simple as marriage, a lots of things would be involved during the divorce process which we all know that registry can't handle, most especially money, properties, kids, etc

maasoap:
Divorce is not as simple as marriage, a lots of things would be involved during the divorce process which we all know that registry can't handle, most especially money, properties, kids, etc

Just like marriage takes place usually even before the couples start having rights and liabilities, so also divorce can take place and then like psqaure brothers who "divorced" first, they can still sue each other for their rights and liabilities.

So, divorce is separable from determining the rights and liabilities of the former couple

AllBlack:
Who cares what she thought or was thinking?

The court does. It's all about representation. There is no way that you would see a married man everyday and you do not see him with a wife or children that you won't reasonably presume that he is married. Even worse is when he confirms that he has left his house. That is implied and constructive divorce and it is natural for her to act on it.

QuinQQ:
See, the idea is to PREVENT divorce because people who want divorce today may not want it tomorrow. So all that process gives time for tempers to cool and time for reconciliation before divorce becomes final

That was the idea in those days when marriages was seen as good and taken very seriously and of course no one planned to divorce. But today, yes marriage is good but it is also bad and so divorce is in mind. So, couples today do not really require a cooling off period.

In those days, the couple thought the offending spouse could change. Today, the couple know that there won't be a change. So, it's either they stay married and endure or they divorce

Dtruthspeaker:
The court does. It's all about representation. There is no way that you would see a married man everyday and you do not see him with a wife or children that you won't reasonably presume that he is married. Even worse is when he confirms that he has left his house. That is implied and constructive divorce and it is natural for her to act on it.

Everything you said now points to ignorance on her part. She was assuming when she had all the time to ASK him for an affirmation. The court does not ride on assumptions.

Dtruthspeaker:
Separation and Dissolution of marriage aka divorce is different and should be different from determination of the rights and liabilities of the parties arising from the effects of marriage. That is the part that should go to court like every other matter.

But divorce as presently constituted that is registry marriage (marriage under the Act) is evil to a spouse who needs to run away from a marriage they no longer want. Imagine that oga and the wife in this case up here have to wait 2yrs before they can initiate divorce proceedings. The law did not even provide for an exception eg that if they both consent to it. They just have to suffer for 2yrs in this mess which we know that GBV will take place, marital rape and a whole lot of evils.

Exiting a marriage should be free and easy as it might be life saving.

I don't think the law is absolute. I think there are exceptions, like evidence of threat to life DV, serious neglect and abuse etc. Also, nobody said they must live under the same roof for the two years innit? One person can move out.

AllBlack:
Everything you said now points to ignorance on her part. She was assuming when she had all the time to ASK him for an affirmation. The court does not ride on assumptions.

C'mon man don't be harsh on her. she must ask him. It is natural to ask. However, that is the power of constructive divorce. If divorce was easy then this case would be against her as it would be clear that if Ajayi did not divorce his wife and his wife did not divorce him either then it means that they never intended to divorce since it is very easy to divorce. So no constructive divorce.

However, as presently constituted, divorce is not a stroll to the mall and so, it naturally discourages people from going through the process which is even very costly, hence most people rather create the constructive divorce situation.

vanvickie:
I don't think the law is absolute. I think there are exceptions, like evidence of threat to life DV, serious neglect and abuse etc. Also, nobody said they must live under the same roof for the two years innit? One person can move out.

Yes, there are exceptions however it is almost impossible to meet that bar, hence why many die in marriages.

And since you agree that the couple must not live together, then that is divorce; constructive divorce

Dtruthspeaker:
Just like marriage takes place usually even before the couples start having rights and liabilities, so also divorce can take place and then like psqaure brothers who "divorced" first, they can still sue each other for their rights and liabilities.

So, divorce is separable from determining the rights and liabilities of the former couple

I don't know the separation you're talking about. Won't they need money and properties to live their life separately?

maasoap:
I don't know the separation you're talking about. Won't they need money and properties to live their life separately?

Do they not have the things they owned or acquired before/during the marriage? Everyone would go their tents or their father's/mother's tent as the case may be

Dtruthspeaker:
Do they not have the things they owned or acquired before/during the marriage? Everyone would go their tents or their father's/mother's tent as the case may be

Lol. Why are you making kid's argument? You're arguing like someone who doesn't understand the law at all.
Everything they owned before and during the marriage has become one and tangled together unless there is prenup agreement or expressly stated.
May be you are thinking that after the divorce, they will ask husband what are his properties and money and he should go with all of it? You think the court will ask the wife the same question? Don't make me laugh

maasoap:
Lol. Why are you making kid's argument? You're arguing like someone who doesn't understand the law at all.
Everything they owned before and during the marriage has become one and tangled together unless there is prenup agreement or expressly stated.
May be you are thinking that after the divorce, they will ask husband what are his properties and money and he should go with all of it? You think the court will ask the wife the same question? Don't make me laugh

See American movie has filled your head. If it was so, then Regina Daniel's, basketmouth's wife, ay's wife' frank edohor's wife etc should have split their properties and gone.

So, shake your head and beat out the brain soaping you have from American movies kid.

Dtruthspeaker:
See American movie has filled your head.
If it was so, then Regina Daniel's, basketmouth's wife, ay's wife' frank edohor's wife etc should have split their properties and gone.

So, shake your head and beat out the brain soaping you have from American movies kid.

You see your life again? Do you people comprehend at all when you read something?

unless there is prenup agreement or expressly stated.

maasoap:
You see your life again? Do you people comprehend at all when you read something?

Hunkul go and wash ya head from American movies and go and read real books

1) In Nigeria, have you heard anyone doing prenup? No. E get why!

If you had read instead of using American movies you would have seen that Prenup is for preventing the splitting of properties, which does not happen in Nigeria. So, you are talking oh pee