Dino Melaye in matrimonial mess
A High Court of the Federal Capital Territory, sitting in Garki, Abuja, on Wednesday, dissolved the marriage between Senator Daniel Melaye (Known as Dino Melaye) and Tokunbo Melaye.
The trial judge of court 62, Hon. Justice Mariam Iye Yusuf-Daibu, held that the union between the two has irretrievably broken down.
The petition marked No. Pet /157/2025 was filed by Mrs Tokunbo Melaye, through her counsel, Esezobor Emmanuel Izibili, Esq. on the 21st March 2025.
The matter which went with the speed of light took fast dimension when Dino Melaye refused to enter a defence in the matter despite represented by a counsel, Deborah Danladi Yakubu, throughout the duration of the trial.
Justice Iye Yusuf-Daibu in dissolving the marriage held the petition meant two grounds, among others, for the dissolution of a union as captured by the Matrimonial Cause Act of Nigeria. 
According to her, the parties had lived apart for upto 11 years , against the three years stipulated by the Act, and that the petition went undefended. She said these two grounds are enough for dissolution of any marriage.
“I’m convinced that as when the petition was filed, the respondent (Dino Melaye) was in Nigeria which is within the jurisdiction of the court,” hence his failure to put a defence proved that he does not want to remain in the marriage. This means the respondent does not care about the dissolution.
“When parties are living apart for such a long time, it’s adjudged that the marriage has broken down. The petitioner also was able to prove that indeed, the marriage has broken down irretrievably” she held.
She said from the tone of the petition, the relationship between both parties has degenerated into irreconcilable differences and has become irredeemable and the petitioner cannot no longer live with the respondent.
“I therefore pronounced a decree to the dissolution of the marriage on the ground that it has broken down irretrievably”, Justice Iye Yusuf-Daibu held.
She stated that the Order Nisi shall become ABSOLUTE three months from the date of her pronouncement except an appeal is lodged.
In her petition, Tokunbo narrated that the marriage which was contracted on March 29, 2003 in Kaduna, Kaduna State produced three children.
She stressed as the time they got married she was a staff of City Express Bank, now United Bank for Africa (UBA PLC ), and thereafter worked with Oceanic Bank, that presently she is an Assistant Manager with NIGCOMSAT Ltd, Abuja.
She noted that after the marriage they both lived together at FHA, Lugbe, Abuja, Wuae Zone 6 and Owando Close, Wuse Zone 4, Abuja, respectively.
The petitioner said they got married (on November 29, 2003), according to the Christian rites at the United English Baptist Church, Kaduna, and the union produced three children – the eldest being 21, the second 20 and girl 15 years old girl.
Narrating her ordeal, Tokunbo said after marriage they lived together for a while but as time went on, the respondent started behaving in a peculiar manner which she found intolerable and irreconcilable.
“Our relationship continued to degenerate to the extent of irreconcilable differences.”
That eventually led to her moving out of the matrimonial home sometime in September 2013 leaving the children of the marriage with the respondent. However, sometime in November 2013 the custody of the only girl child of the marriage was recovered by the petitioner through FIDA.
She thus prayed the court to grant the reliefs she sought in the petition.
She pleaded for the desolation on the ground that they have lived apart for a continuous period of 11 years proceeding the presentation of the petition, and the respondent was not objecting to a decree been granted.
“The marriage between the petitioner and the respondent has broken down irretrievably with irreconcilable differences and the petitioner cannot reasonably be expected to live with the respondent,” the petition said.
The petitioner narrated further that the respondent went to court earlier but abandoned the case due to intervention of FIDA sometime ago with the hope of reconciliation.
Meanwhile, she did not seek any claim of maintenance and upkeep and properties from the respondent, noting that where she and the only girl child of the marriage lives since six years ago, belongs to the respondent.
