Mtekateka v Mtekateka (Civil Cause 442 of 1979) [1980] MWHCFam 5 (31 July 1980)

Har Nara eae ane be Pd | so IN THE HIGH COURT OF MALAWI AT RLANTYR? CIVIL CAUSE No. 442 of 1979 : BETWEEN: “JANET? MIBKATEKA aac Ae aoe ks ET ITIONER and : ANDREW MTBKATEKA pete oda ok go RESPONDENT and ; WBN CTETRA 25 > ee meal CO-RESPOKIENT | mess ! - Coram: SKINNER, C. J. Sachi Mbalame, Principal Legal Aid for the Fetitionser Fespondent : unrepresented, not present Co-respondent : unrepresented, not present _ Kawinga: Official Interpreter Kelly: Court Reporter BA | JUDGMENT The petitioner prays for the dissolution of her marriage to gE / the respondent on the grounds of adultary and Pree Ltye The facts are that the parties are Malawians, domiciled in Nalawi, and they were married at the office of the Fegistrar of Marriages in Blantyre on the 1°th January 1974 and lived and co—habited together in the Blantyre District until May 1978. In July 1977 the respondent beat the petitioner with his fists, as a result of which her face and eye became swollen. f He mace another attack on her in the month of May 1978, he again beat her with his fists and when she refused to leave the matrimonial home he threatened to stab her with a knife. He failed to find a knife and he took a pair of scissors. She ran out of the house and her evidence is that she is afraid that if she lived with him he would do her further injury. Boa. }’ With regard to the allegations of cruelty it is sufficient ee to say that they are materially proved and I find that the petitioner has been subjected to bodily injury and that she has beer put in. continuous bodily fear. The degree of cruelty necessary to establish the claim for dissolution of Marriage is sufficiently established here. I now turn to the allegation of adultery. The only evidence I have is that of the wife. She found the co-respondent a number of times in the matrimonial home after she had left in May 1976 and she saw that the co-respordent's clothes were in the respondent's bedroom. I warn myself that I must treat her evidence on this with care as there is no corroboration. I believe her and I think the story she tells as regards fincing the co-responcent and her clothes fin in? ‘the ratvimonial bedroom is true. re, { Fle I am satisfied ae there is no er to granting a decree oP 7 isi grant a decree nisi in accordance with the prayer in me ition. The respondent is condemned in costs subject to ; taxation. The guestion of custody is adjourned to chambers. 1 & 5 Pronounced in open court this 31st Gay of July 1980 at Blantyre. 4 .