₦airaland Forum

coolsegun2002:
#.did I say it speaks for natural justice and fairness...?

No quarrel intended here.

Your laws could not escape Expressly Declaring and Stating that you Must Do "Natural Justice, Equity and Good Conscience".

coolsegun2002:
#. see.... it’s not my place to analyze the circumstances surrounding the marriage, marriage is complicated, why she left is not really my business.. in fact the OP ddnt say...he just said she left for a while and came back after death....if she ddnt have kids for the man.. she can’t come back naaa.

This is a bad statement because Doing Justice compells you to discover and ascertain that, which is True and Solid from that which is a Lie or Falls, sieving that which is Good from that which is Bad.

And this can only be achieved through Proper Analysis!

Any Lawyer who is not willing to do this really has no business in Law, for he condemns himself.

coolsegun2002:
#What’s the essence of this imagination u asking me to do....that’s not condition the OP gave us.. it’s about someone that came back to lay claims cos she has kids...I don’t get u ooooo ......

And we are all saying that the Woman herself, has No Right To Claim for herself or her benefit. If she was even the wife, she would not even have to make a claim.

But it is settled that the children do not even have to make a claim to take up their father's property, it is theirs already by Nature and Natural Law!

And the op has not made an issue about the children but About the woman, which is the reason why all comments are directed towards the Rightness or Righteousness of the woman's conduct and her purported case.

Dtruthspeaker:
No quarrel intended here.

Your laws could not escape Expressly Declaring and Stating that you Must Do "Natural Justice, Equity and Good Conscience".



This is a bad statement because Doing Justice compells you to discover and ascertain that, which is True and Solid from that which is a Lie or Falls, sieving that which is Good from that which is Bad.

And this can only be achieved through Proper Analysis!

Any Lawyer who is not willing to do this really has no business in Law, for he condemns himself.



And we are all saying that the Woman herself, has No Right To Claim for herself or her benefit. If she was even the wife, she would not even have to make a claim.

But it is settled that the children do not even have to make a claim to take up their father's property, it is theirs already by Nature and Natural Law!

And the op has not made an issue about the children but About the woman, which is the reason why all comments are directed towards the Rightness or Righteousness of the woman's conduct and her purported case.

See....u are just complicating this issue by playing judge and advocate at the same time....saying it is bad that I ddnt find out why she left is playing holy than thou....no one is perfect..marrige is one of the most complicated situation in the world.....besides there’s a present condition that qualifies her to come back, which is her kids...that superceeds any other reason why she left....if u don’t want to get this simple fact...then we will have to leave this point unresolved so u can play ur fairness/holy attitude...

.

I have seen this case plenty times....becos the she left with her kids, the family of the man Wants to cut her nd her kids off.....
why?
because giving her kids any inheritance automatically means she has gotten something especially when the kids are still young....

.u are the one that’s not getting the OP and the man’s family stand...go and read the the ops first comment in the first page and ask the OP if the kids are grown up enough to claim and manage their father’s inheritance without their mother......

If they are adults..their mum won’t be there in the first place .....


U saying that the woman doesn’t have right by herself is just a desperate attempt to modify the condition on ground....the woman in question cannot be viewed separately becos she has kids... why do u keep bringing up another scenario where she can’t lay claims??

coolsegun2002:
marrige is one of the most complicated situation in the world.....

And here, is the reason why you all are confused, running up and down, in an Attempt to resolve simple problems.

Marriage is Easy, if and only if, the couples Do Good Only to each other.

But this is Not So, for it appears one party is attempting to defraud the other or prevent another from taking a benefit. Or in the case of Liability, Fleeing, from it, while the other pursues so that they may have joint liability.

All these evasions and schemings are Definitely Settled in Natural Law, in their respective places.

coolsegun2002:
...besides there’s a present condition that qualifies her to come back, which is her kids...that superceeds any other reason why she left....

Her children are hers' and Wherever they are, She has a Right of Access to her children, No Dispute here for the Op did not raise any issue about the children.

And Neither did the Op say that they have prevented her Access to the children, So leave this children matter. If you are interested in the analysis of the Rights of A Unmarried Mother separated from the father of her children, Raise A thread to that purpose.

coolsegun2002:
I have seen this case plenty times....becos the she left with her kids, the family of the man Wants to cut her nd her kids off.....
why?
because giving her kids any inheritance automatically means she has gotten something especially when the kids are still young....

Aha, Lawyer, even your courts have settled this one na, "That Nothing shall prevent the children of the deceased from entering into the deceased's estate'

The wahala is that most times the family no go gree until court chook mouth.

coolsegun2002:
.u are the one that’s not getting the OP and the man’s family stand...go and read the the ops first comment in the first page and ask the OP if the kids are grown up enough to claim and manage their father’s inheritance without their mother......

If they are adults..their mum won’t be there in the first place .....

This one is settled na, we have already said she can claim for "their' (No be only her get the children, hence instead of her I elected to say "their children" children, whether little or grown.

But it appeared that you were attempting to stretch the fact that she could even claim for herself, that one is a very Big NO, NOT POSSIBLE, IN THIS CASE, UPON THE SAME FACTS!

coolsegun2002:
U saying that the woman doesn’t have right by herself is just a desperate attempt to modify the condition on ground....the woman in question cannot be viewed separately becos she has kids... why do u keep bringing up another scenario where she can’t lay claims??

This is your statement causing contention hereunder!

coolsegun2002:
She can still lay some claims legally.. but only in a customary court if she decides to sue the family of the man for trying to cut off...

because a man and a woman ddnt marry legally by state law does not nullify the union completely as “never happened”....living with someone for a significant number of years with or without children technically counts as civil union everywhere in the world...the fact that she has a child makes her case even stronger....

She might not have a say with ordinary mouth. but her claims are valid if she drags the family of the husband to a customary court ...

As stated earlier, it is settled that with children, the woman can make a claim but the objection is on the fact that without Children, it is impossible, coming on the ground that you have said "with or without children her claims are valid"

We state that with children it is valid and without children, it is impossible for her to make any claim. Imagine, play-play girlfriend wey don terminate since 2008 go come get right to come dey drag property of old boyfriend when e die, Nna men, Lauretta Onochie go be president before e happen.

Dtruthspeaker:
And here, is the reason why you all are confused, running up and down, in an Attempt to resolve simple problems.

Marriage is Easy, if and only if, the couples Do Good Only to each other.

But this is Not So, for it appears one party is attempting to defraud the other or prevent another from taking a benefit. Or in the case of Liability, Fleeing, from it, while the other pursues so that they may have joint liability.

All these evasions and schemings are Definitely Settled in Natural Law, in their respective places.



Her children are hers' and Wherever they are, She has a Right of Access to her children, No Dispute here for the Op did not raise any issue about the children.

And Neither did the Op say that they have prevented her Access to the children, So leave this children matter. If you are interested in the analysis of the Rights of A Unmarried Mother separated from the father of her children, Raise A thread to that purpose.



Aha, Lawyer, even your courts have settled this one na, "That Nothing shall prevent the children of the deceased from entering into the deceased's estate'

The wahala is that most times the family no go gree until court chook mouth.



This one is settled na, we have already said she can claim for "their' (No be only her get the children, hence instead of her I elected to say "their children" children, whether little or grown.

But it appeared that you were attempting to stretch the fact that she could even claim for herself, that one is a very Big NO, NOT POSSIBLE, IN THIS CASE, UPON THE SAME FACTS!



This is your statement causing contention hereunder!


As stated earlier, it is settled that with children, the woman can make a claim but the objection is on the fact that without Children, it is impossible, coming on the ground that you have said "with or without children her claims are valid"

We state that with children it is valid and without children, it is impossible for her to make any claim. Imagine, play-play girlfriend wey don terminate since 2008 go come get right to come dey drag property of old boyfriend when e die, Nna men, Lauretta Onochie go be president before e happen.

Seriously....I am tired....by the way...stop trying to pull ur holy than thou attitude on me...no one is perfect here....if u are not Jesus ..keep u perfection speech to urself...

I told u to go read the OPs original statement...if u read it well u will see that he raised three different points to nullify the woman's claim even though he already knew and told us this woman had children for their late son...below are the points

1.That the woman isn’t legally married to the man.
2. that she left for some time....

3. to now paint her bad... he added that man was sick in her absence till he died....and she ddnt take care of him...

Why bring up number these points...when he already knew the woman had children for the late man, making her entitled to come back and ask for what is due for her children ...?? It was to make their family’s case of denying the woman and her children strong....

U’ll see that many people were commenting in the first page that there’s no official union, so there’s nothing between them to dissolve...that’s becos people were addressing one of the points he raised( that the union is unimportant because it’s devoid of paper).

That’s why I came in and Addressed his number one point by saying “ ....paper or no paper living with someone for a significant number of years with or without children technically counts as civil union everywhere in the world...”they can’t make the union nonexistent just becos of paper....( that’s not the reason why are claim is valid anyways, but I’ll tell u why I mentioned it below)

I followed up with another statement...that fact that she has a child makes her case even stronger....

U see why I mentioned the first point ....families like that of the OP are wicked....if the woman never had a child, and never left.... they would have still brought up one of the 3 points above to prevent her of having any inheritance
...I.e the marriage is paperless....

finaleeec:
. I think we should know what exactly the woman is trying to Lay claims to ,even If there was a Civil Union once Upon a time does such discontinued Civil Union Guarantees the Natural right of the Woman to Lay Claims ? Fine they once lived together and they are no more living together ,even if the deceased man is alive he won't argue or deny that they do not once had a Civil Union ..Back to the Main Point .What such a woman could be trying to Lay Claim of share to is nothing but Property left by the Deceased Man and in most Tradition a woman is considered a Property of the Deceased man ,she cannot Inherit her deceased Husband that is even if the wife still stays with her husband before He died ,The room she lives in might be left for her .This one is even a quite different matter ,the woman had left the man several years ,She has no Claim to Lay please ,It's only the Children who are the late man blood relations that she had for the man that Has right to Lay claim to there Late father Property .If after sharing the Property to the Children,they can inturn Hand it over to there Mother if they wish ,if it's money they Inherited ,it's there Choice to give it to there Mother after they might have been given by the family relatives of the Deceased .

Lol,that guy is actually right,a few months back a Canadian woman sued her lover of 10yrs for refusing to settle her after their breakup. Mind you they never got married,they never had any children together although the man has children with a previous partner,the funny thing is she won the lawsuit and the guy paid her a very huge amount of money for being his fvck buddy and will continue to pay monthly upkeep. so in a system that works,she have a very strong case

coolsegun2002:
I told u to go read the OPs original statement...if u read it well u will see that he raised three different points to nullify the woman's claim even though he already knew and told us this woman had children for their late son...below are the points

1.That the woman isn’t legally married to the man.
2. that she left for some time....

3. to now paint her bad... he added that man was sick in her absence till he died....and she ddnt take care of him...

Why bring up number these points...when he already knew the woman had children for the late man, making her entitled to come back and ask for what is due for her children ...?? It was to make their family’s case of denying the woman and her children strong....

U’ll see that many people were commenting in the first page that there’s no official union, so there’s nothing between them to dissolve...that’s becos people were addressing one of the points he raised( that the union is unimportant because it’s devoid of paper).

That’s why I came in and Addressed his number one point by saying “ ....paper or no paper living with someone for a significant number of years with or without children technically counts as civil union everywhere in the world...”they can’t make the union nonexistent just becos of paper....( that’s not the reason why are claim is valid anyways, but I’ll tell u why I mentioned it below)

I followed up with another statement...that fact that she has a child makes her case even stronger....

U see why I mentioned the first point ....families like that of the OP are wicked....if the woman never had a child, and never left.... they would have still brought up one of the 3 points above to prevent her of having any inheritance
...I.e the marriage is paperless....

Thanks for the clarification, for the most peaceful way of resolving a conflict is through the use of healthy debate, and this statement above, without doubt is very clear. (and as an obiter this is provided by Natural Law )

And you are right, it is Wrong for the family of the man to prevent the children of couple from taking from their father.

coolsegun2002:
Seriously....I am tired....by the way...stop trying to pull ur holy than thou attitude on me...no one is perfect here....if u are not Jesus ..keep u perfection speech to urself...

In Truth, the more I learn Natural Law, the more I see that as a person we are "Under-Righting" that is, we do not do the whole Right.

And as a Christian, Natural Law Clearly Shows that we Fall Short on Rights and we do not do the Sufficient Right or Rightness or Righteousness in any matter, therefore, we are Unrighteous.

And if we are Unrighteous, we can never qualify to be considered for the Kingdom of God.

And I do want to qualify for it, and the criteria is "Do No Wrong".

And Like Equity has said "He Who Comes to The Law (I put here, The Lord), Must Come With Clean Hands!" As gleaned from the Statement in

Psalms 24:3-4

3 Who shall ascend into the hill of the Lord? or who shall stand in his holy place?

4 He that hath clean hands, and a pure heart; who hath not lifted up his soul unto vanity, nor sworn deceitfully.

Sarita01:
Lol,that guy is actually right,a few months back a Canadian woman sued her lover of 10yrs for refusing to settle her after their breakup. Mind you they never got married,they never had any children together although the man has children with a previous partner,the funny thing is she won the lawsuit and the guy paid her a very huge amount of money for being his fvck buddy and will continue to pay monthly upkeep. so in a system that works,she have a very strong case

You have said the magic words "after their breakup", Not "Long" After the break up.

Why?

Because Natural Law says "Where There is Any Residue of Rights Remaining or Owed, In Any Transaction, The Party Owed Is Entitled To Claim Such Rights Or Benefits!"

Sarita01:
Lol,that guy is actually right,a few months back a Canadian woman sued her lover of 10yrs for refusing to settle her after their breakup. Mind you they never got married,they never had any children together although the man has children with a previous partner,the funny thing is she won the lawsuit and the guy paid her a very huge amount of money for being his fvck buddy and will continue to pay monthly upkeep. so in a system that works,she have a very strong case

In follow up to Truespeak is;

The Tenets of The Law is To Live Honestly, To Harm No One and To Give To Each His Due!

Sarita01:
Lol,that guy is actually right,a few months back a Canadian woman sued her lover of 10yrs for refusing to settle her after their breakup. Mind you they never got married,they never had any children together although the man has children with a previous partner,the funny thing is she won the lawsuit and the guy paid her a very huge amount of money for being his fvck buddy and will continue to pay monthly upkeep. so in a system that works,she have a very strong case

. Which System works ,Which Unfair ,Injustice and Un- Balanced Justice is that .Does it means because it's happened in Canada makes it a Justice Authority and Compelling on others in other Countries. There are things you are not Telling us ,U mean a man and woman live together as Sex Mate only nothing else for 10 Years ?

gnss:
. Which System works ,Which Unfair ,Injustice and Un- Balanced Justice is that .Does it means because it's happened in Canada makes it a Justice Authority and Compelling on others in other Countries. There are things you are not Telling us ,U mean a man and woman live together as Sex Mate only nothing else for 10 Years ?

You know they have what we we in Nigeria would call a weird relationship type which is a relationship based on a Predetermined sets of Rights and Shared Liabilities.

Thus if any party fails to keep their own side of the agreement, they could be sued for it.

If there is no legal bonding there is not like divorce.

Dtruthspeaker:
You know they have what we we in Nigeria would call a weird relationship type which is a relationship based on a Predetermined sets of Rights and Shared Liabilities.

Thus if any party fails to keep their own side of the agreement, they could be sued for it.

. Could a man Agreed with a woman that she would be His Bed sex mate ,Live together ,No Kids ,No court Marriage ....The man feeds the Lady ,Pays for the rental ,Buys her clothes in a nutshell takes full responsibility of the lady while the lady inturn gives only the man her Private part for a long period of Years .Can that be a relationship based on a Predetermined sets of right and shared Liabilities ? Would a woman agreed to such alone without been interested in other things

gnss:
. Could a man Agreed with a woman that she would be His Bed sex mate ,Live together ,No Kids ,No court Marriage ....The man feeds the Lady ,Pays for the rental ,Buys her clothes in a nutshell takes full responsibility of the lady while the lady inturn gives only the man her Private part for a long period of Years .Can that be a relationship based on a Predetermined sets of right and shared Liabilities ? Would a woman agreed to such alone without been interested in other things

This is The Law - Consensus ad idem and "Consent Makes The Law".

No matter how imbalance and unusual an agreement is, once it is shown that the parties Willfully agreed to it, it is enforceable.

coolsegun2002:
Do u even know the context and premise of this discussion? How can u just jump in here and start throwing scriptures indiscriminately .... who does that??

Baba save your strenght.. Some ppl are just ignorance to expend your ENERGY on!

MSGAMBLE9:
Baba save your strenght.. Some ppl are just ignorance to expend your ENERGY on!

. Knowledge has no End ,The Encyclopedia, Wikipedia and all the Written down Knowledge U see ,read today ,Faculty of Knowledge are Collections of other People Discovery ,Knowledge ,So what You know is what you know ,What you know is not the end and Limitation of Knowledge .What you know is not an Authority over what you don't know ,We learn everyday ,not Becoming Foolish but becoming wiser...You don't Label someome Ignorant just because he does not agree with someone's View .

Dtruthspeaker:
This is The Law - Consensus ad idem and "Consent Makes The Law".

No matter how imbalance and unusual an agreement is, once it is shown that the parties Willfully agreed to it, it is enforceable.

...I want to differ on this sir ...What is Enforceable about Sex Mate Living together for Several Years , How do we define an Agreement under this Context ...No formal or Informal Marriage Contract ,No documents U mean if I should go to a Nite Club now and I see a Lady ,Invite her to my house to sleep with her ,We have an Agreement of an amount and I settle her and later she discovered I am with no woman ,then she started coming often and we continued the sexual Relationship ,I give an agreed amount anytime he comes ,Later he moved into my House ,Takes care of her needs ....This goes on for some Years ,No Child .Along the line we had a differences and she left my home ,after some few weeks ,She sued me to Court .On what Ground will that be ,What would be her Claim.,That I kept her at my home without her Consent ,that I owned her money or what .I don't understand.

gnss:
...I want to differ on this sir ...What is Enforceable about Sex Mate Living together for Several Years , How do we define an Agreement under this Context ...No formal or Informal Marriage Contract ,No documents U mean if I should go to a Nite Club now and I see a Lady ,Invite her to my house to sleep with her ,We have an Agreement of an amount and I settle her and later she discovered I am with no woman ,then she started coming often and we continued the sexual Relationship ,I give an agreed amount anytime he comes ,Later he moved into my House ,Takes care of her needs ....This goes on for some Years ,No Child .Along the line we had a differences and she left my home ,after some few weeks ,She sued me to Court .On what Ground will that be ,What would be her Claim.,That I kept her at my home without her Consent ,that I owned her money or what .I don't understand.

Respectfully, your scenario does not fall within the meaning of an Agreement. And what you described is the typical African Man/Woman Relationship, in which case, the man bears all the burdens of the relationship and he consents to the burden while the woman's contribution is received on the face of it.

Where you see this issue play out is in Value Relationships as seen in foreign Jurisdiction because, living conditions are quite arduous there.

Therefore, things like rent, cars, fuel, food, companionship, sex, travels, hotels, restaurant bills etc are very very important to them and are valuable to them in any relationship.

Therefore, any one who seeks to be a part of their lives must take up some parts of these obligations.

And the where a partner assists in the other partners liability, that other partner now owes reimbursements to the Assisting partner and failure to reimburse brings liability.

All these is known and Agreed by the intending couple, in that jurisdiction.

This idea of relationship is unknown and uncommon in African Jurisdictions.

Dtruthspeaker:
Respectfully, your scenario does not fall within the meaning of an Agreement. And what you described is the typical African Man/Woman Relationship, in which case, the man bears all the burdens of the relationship and he consents to the burden while the woman's contribution is received on the face of it.

Where you see this issue play out is in Value Relationships as seen in foreign Jurisdiction because, living conditions are quite arduous there.

Therefore, things like rent, cars, fuel, food, companionship, sex, travels, hotels, restaurant bills etc are very very important to them and are valuable to them in any relationship.

Therefore, any one who seeks to be a part of their lives must take up some parts of these obligations.

And the where a partner assists in the other partners liability, that other partner now owes reimbursements to the Assisting partner and failure to reimburse brings liability.

All these is known and Agreed by the intending couple, in that jurisdiction.

This idea of relationship is unknown and uncommon in African Jurisdictions.

. Thanks so much . Your Explanation is very clear without any Ambiguity or Hypocrisy.

gnss:
. Which System works ,Which Unfair ,Injustice and Un- Balanced Justice is that .Does it means because it's happened in Canada makes it a Justice Authority and Compelling on others in other Countries. There are things you are not Telling us ,U mean a man and woman live together as Sex Mate only nothing else for 10 Years ?

I was so annoyed when i read that shit,I was so freaking annoying,it made me loose respect for the whites,I actually read the news here on nairaland. They were Bleep buddies for 10yrs without them being married,it was so messed up

Sarita01:
I was so annoyed when i read that shit,I was so freaking annoying,it made me loose respect for the whites,I actually read the news here on nairaland. They were Bleep buddies for 10yrs without them being married,it was so messed up

U are damn right .

etrange:
Only legally married couples can be legally separated (divorced).

Nigerian law envisages 3 types of marriages namely; traditional/customary marriage; church/Islamic marriage and statutory marriage. However, since many churches are recognised as statutory places of worship, couples married in such churches are issued both church marriage certificate and statutory marriage certificate (normally signed after the wedding ceremony in the presence or witnesses). The Matrimonial Cause Act aimed at regulating only statutory marriage (which by extension now includes church marriage). The dissolution requirements of these types of marriages are somewhat incompatible seeing that Islamic marriage and customary marriage have the potential to become polygamous, a system not recognised by the statutory law. Although these conflicts are still there (just like many other Nigerian laws begging for amendment), the unique nature of Islamic marriage has made it convenient for divorce cases in that area to be left to the Islamic law while cases regarding the dissolution of marriages exclusively contracted under the customary provisions (traditional marriage) are left to the customary law (a very complex law with many limitations). Since statutory and customary laws do not make precisely the same provisions for divorce, the glitch is when a couple seeking divorce is bound by both laws (this happens mostly to Christians who do both traditional and church marriage processes). However, that's a discussion for another day. The point here is that all these marriages are recognised by the law and only couples bound by them can seek divorce.

now on the ground of age falsification by the woman who was joined in a statutory law and if the man files for divorce will the man still pay the woman?

coolsegun2002:
I never said the above......

I only sighted an example with a Canadian case where a man still had to pay even though kids were not involved....this was just show that the institution of marriage is rigged against men

what if the woman in question falsified her age for the man to marry her. Then the man finds out that the woman who he just married is way older than him and was unable to gives him a child. So what you are still saying is that if the man files for divorce he will still pay the woman?

Acme45:
now on the ground of age falsification by the woman who was joined in a statutory law and if the man files for divorce will the man still pay the woman?

Unfortunately, it is extremely difficult to answer such legal questions straight away without a good argument and counter argument. Each case is unique and the law is garnished with several exceptions. I am, therefore, sorry for this long answer. First, we need to understand that even though family law differs from a region to another, the law doesn't really say the man should pay the woman when a couple gets a divorce. However, money is usually transferred from one partner to another in the form of alimony or child support. I don't think I need to talk much about the need for child support so I'd just concentrate on alimony aka spousal support. (Note that the word "alimony" may be replaced with "maintenance support" in Nigeria but the principles are generally the same).

In countries where alimony applies, it defined as the sum of money paid either in bulk or over a period by one partner to the other depending on who is wealthier or earns more. However, it’s true that in a majority of cases, the man is always richer and that means the man sends money to the wife. This is because of the stereotypical gender gap that prevents women from being as career driven as man (the idea that women should leave their jobs and move to the man's location after marriage or the idea that a woman shouldn't have a job that wouldn't give her enough time to take care of the home or the idea that a woman is better off in the kitchen/the other room, etc.). The aim here is just to limit any unfair economic effects of a divorce by providing support equivalent to the time invested in the marriage. Many factors determine if and how much alimony needs to be paid. Such factors include: length of marriage, age/health of the receiving spouse, financial status of the payer, status of the recipient before divorce, other peculiarities of the case (court's discretion), etc.

This therefore suggests that paying alimony or how much of it to pay depends, to a great extent, on the circumstances surrounding the case as well as the lawyer's skill. Yes, a good lawyer might be able to use age forgery, infidelity (rarely), etc. to reduce alimony but that's not always the case cause such factors can't be handle in isolation, it must be considered alongside other factors. For example, was it love that made her forge her age? If you the man knew her age, would he have allowed her to work like him instead of doing a petty job in order to take care of the home? Does the fake age at any point help the lady get a job that boosted her lifestyle? Did the husband at point in the marriage do anything that could have made the wife file for a divorce? How was the relationship up to the point of the man finding out the wife's age was false? How much has the wife invested in the marriage? What of the concept of manifest injustice (here in North America)? What is the psychological effect of the revelation? In fact, it's up to the lawyers to do theirs job and for the judge to decide.

gnss:
. Thanks so much . Your Explanation is very clear without any Ambiguity or Hypocrisy.

I Praise The Lord and I thank you too for recognising a balanced Judgment, which is what I always aim to know and present in every single case, both in and out of Court.

I Truly thank you!

Acme45:
what if the woman in question falsified her age for the man to marry her. Then the man finds out that the woman who he just married is way older than him and was unable to gives him a child. So what you are still saying is that if the man files for divorce he will still pay the woman?

I know you directed the question to coolsegun and Etrange, but I wish to respectfully lend my voice to the issue.

I know you feel the Correct Answer in your soul, and I do confirm that indeed, she would not be entitled to any settlement, for she is the one who has done wrong in making an Untrue Representation (Commonly called False Representation) and For Failing To Disclose a Material Fact that may adversely affect the Union.

However, many issues must still be settled, eg could you have Reasonably known and foreseen that she was beyond birthing age or capability? And other issues that she may raise up.

Dtruthspeaker:
I Praise The Lord and I thank you too for recognising a balanced Judgment, which is what I always aim to know and present in every single case, both in and out of Court.

I Truly thank you!

. Are you a Lawyer ?

Acme45:
what if the woman in question falsified her age for the man to marry her. Then the man finds out that the woman who he just married is way older than him and was unable to gives him a child. So what you are still saying is that if the man files for divorce he will still pay the woman?

I haven’t said anything about this because this is a new scenario u just fabricated....

But anyways.....allow me to come at u like this...

Mayb u are are thinking becos she lied about her age...then the marriage will be rendered null and void....and the judge will just send her packiging automatically.....
Oga...news flash!!....the marrige is still valid...and she can still get money from you if you want to send her packing ...

See...everything isn’t black and white in court...
Do u know that they prove intent in court? That’s how they determine if a murder case is premeditated or it happened in the heat of passion becos of provocation..... which makes the judge determine if the accused gets a few years or life sentence/ lethal injection depending on the state....

She can simply say she was embarrassed and did it out of love....u can’t prove she hid her age becos of menopause...menopause doesn’t even have a specific number....some women hit menopause before 40, at 40, some by 50, some above 50..
U can’t claim she knew she can’t bear children.
it’s not like she’s 70 years old and lied she 31....??if it was that obvious...then u would have noticed the lie.....

she may have falsified Her age in the past to get a job ...meaning she ddnt do it to deceive u originally...

Did she break any mariatal law becos of the lie??
E.g bigamy, underage marriage....if not.....Oga... u may likely pay ooo if u divorce...

See technically, all u have is that u want divorce becos ur wife’s age makes u uncomfortable...
Oga..I’m not a. Judge oooooh, but u will likely pay....
People find out a lot of things after marriage...

age and past marital(divorced) history is something u should disclose to ur spouse on the grounds of openness and trust...
...but legally....they are immaterial... because they dont render a marriage null.....yes...it can only cause problems and make a man say he doesn’t want to do again..

gnss:
. Are you a Lawyer ?

Most humbly, i am! But I thought that was very obvious!

Dtruthspeaker:
Most humbly, i am! But I thought that was very obvious!

The eagerness to read Law could have been so so Interesting and undying if most Legal Practitioners takes the path of Justice you are taking ....I humbly request ,how may I contact you please ? ...I sent you a Pm to your email via Nairaland .I Anticipate.

gnss:
The eagerness to read Law could have been so so Interesting and undying if most Legal Practitioners takes the path of Justice you are taking ....

I wish, most especially as they do know who they Represent and what is expected of them.

And also, that the law which they learn and practice is the 'Fake and Untrue law". The True Laws that ought to be taught is Underneath and Deliberately Hidden from Sight because, All those Laws Prove The Existence, Goodness and Great Power of God.

And these Laws Destroy All Evil Works under the sun.

And if these Laws Destroy the works of wicked men, how then shall the wicked prosper?

gnss:
I humbly request ,how may I contact you please ? ...I sent you a Pm to your email via Nairaland .I Anticipate.

Please could you resend. I was trying to access it when I touched the "clear message" button.

Dtruthspeaker:
Please could you resend. I was trying to access it when I touched the "clear message" button.

. Okay sir ...sent another one again with my id Gnss do reply .

gnss:
. Okay sir ...sent another one again with my id Gnss do reply .

I have responded!