Mume atishia kumdai mke wake mamilioni

Akizungumza mbele ya Baraza la Kisheria Kata ya Matongo wilayani  Tarime  Ijumaa, mwanamke huyo alitoa sababu za kudai talaka kuwa ni baada  ya  kumfumania mume wake huyo mara tatu akiwa katika mazingira ya  kimapenzi  na mfanyakazi wao wa nyumbani.  
 
Aidha, katika shauri hilo Na. 24/2011 lililofunguliwa Machi 29, 2011   kwenye Baraza hilo, mwanamke huyo alitaja sababu nyingine ya kudai   talala hiyo kuwa ni baada ya kukerwa 
na tabia ya mume wake huyo ya kuendekeza vitendo vya kishirikina.

                                                                                                                                              MKAZI wa Kata ya Matongo, Wilaya ya Tarime mkoani  Mara, Stephen Anunda,  ametishia kumdai mke wake, Eunice Mroni fidia ya  Sh milioni 37.7 baada  ya mwanamke huyo kufungua shauri la kumdai talaka  katika Baraza la  Kisheria. 
 
Mchanganuo wa fedha hizo kwenye barua yake ya utetezi ('Habarileo'  lina  nakala yake), unaonesha kuwa alitumia Sh milioni 12.6 kumgharimia   mwanamke huyo masomo ya Stashahada ya Uhasibu katika Chuo cha Uhasibu   (CBE) Tawi la Mwanza na Sh milioni 6.5 kumgharimia matibabu alipokuwa   chuoni hapo. 
 
Anunda aliongeza kuwa atamdai pia Sh milioni 16 kama fidia ya   udanganyifu wa kumpotezea muda katika suala la ndoa na Sh milioni 2.6   ambazo ni thamani ya ng'ombe wanane aliolipa mahari kwa wazazi wa   mwanamke huyo.

65. Husband and wife and the law of tort
As from the commencement of this Act–
(a) no husband shall be liable for the torts of his wife by reason only of his being her husband;
(b) a husband and wife shall have the same liability in tort towards each other as if they were unmarried;
(c) neither a husband nor a wife shall be entitled to claim damages, in an action arising out of any negligent act or breach of duty, in respect of the loss or impairment of consortium.

65. Husband and wife and the law of tort
As from the commencement of this Act–
(a) no husband shall be liable for the torts of his wife by reason only of his being her husband;
(b) a husband and wife shall have the same liability in tort towards each other as if they were unmarried;
(c) neither a husband nor a wife shall be entitled to claim damages, in an action arising out of any negligent act or breach of duty, in respect of the loss or impairment of consortium.

72. Right to damages for adultery
(1) A husband or wife may baring a suit for damages against any person with whom his or her spouse has committed adultery:
Provided that no such proceeding shall lie–
(a) where the aggrieved party has consented to or connived at the adultery;
(b) where damages in respect of the alleged adultery have been claimed in a petition for divorce.
(2) A suit brought under this section shall be dismissed if the defendant satisfied the court that he or she did not know and could not, by the exercise of reasonable diligence, have known that the person with whom he or she committed the act of adultery was married.
73. Right to damages for enticement
(1) A husband or wife may bring a suit for damages against any person who has, for any reason, enticed or induced his or her spouse to desert him or her.
(2) A suit brought under this section shall be dismissed if the court is satisfied that the conduct of the plaintiff has been such as to justify or excuse his or her spouse leaving the matrimonial home.
74. Assessment of damages for adultery or enticement
(1) Damages for adultery or enticement shall be in the discretion of the court but shall not include any exemplary or punitive element.
(2) In assessing such damages, the court shall have regard–
(a) to any relevant custom of the community to which the parties belong; and
(b) in cases of adultery, to the question whether husband and wife were living together or apart.
75. Jurisdiction of primary courts A primary court shall have jurisdiction to entertain a suit under this Part where the parties were married in accordance with customary law or in Islamic form or, in the case of a suit under section 69 or section 71, if the court is satisfied that had the parties proceeded to marry they would have married in accordance with customary law or in Islamic form.