N9225
PAPUA NEW GUINEA
[IN THE NATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE]
MC NO. 10 OF 2016
BETWEEN
FIONA LAISA JONES
Petitioner

AND
STEVEN GREGORY JONES
Respondent

Alotau: Toliken, J.
2019: 21st October

MATRIMONIAL CAUSES – Petition – Dissolution of marriage – Uncontested - Grounds – Adultery – Habitual cruelty – Separation – All grounds proven – Decree nisi granted – Matrimonial Causes Act. 

Cases Cited

Brennan v Brennan [1973] PNGLR 372

Counsel

P Palek, for the Petitioner
Nil appearance for the Respondent

JUDGMENT

21st October, 2019
1.	TOLIKEN J:	Fiona Laisa Jones (Petitioner)filed for a decree to dissolve her marriage to Steven Gregory Jones (Respondent).  The Respondent did not file an answer to the Petition hence the suit is undefended. 

JURISDICTION
2.	 The parties got married in accordance with the Marriage Act (Part V) on 14th December 1998. Both the Petitioner and the Respondent are automatic citizens of Papua New Guinea and are domiciled here in the Milne Bay Province. 
4.	The parties lived together from the date of their marriage on 14 December 1998 to August 2007 at Didunega Hamlet, Waima Village, Alotau District. 
5.	Cohabitation, however, ceased after the Respondent started having adulterous affairs beginning in 2001. He also started to mistreat the Petitioner and assaulting her.  Sometimes in 2007, the Respondent left the Petitioner and travelled to Melbourne, Australia to visit his father. He returned sometimes in 2008, but and did not return to their matrimonial home at Waima.  Instead, he went and lived at his village at Daio across the Bay. 
7.	The Parties were therefore separated since 2007.  The Respondent only made contact with the Petitioner intermittently in regard to matters concerning their children. Other than that, they remained apart and separated until now.  From 2013 to the time of filing the Petition, the parties have had no contact let alone resumed cohabitation.
GROUNDS
Adultery
8.	The alleged co-adulterers had not been named in the Petition.  However, in her supporting Affidavit, paragraphs 8 – 11, the Petitioner deposed to two separate acts of adultery.	The first being that between 2000 – 2001, the Petitioner had an adulterous affair with the Petitioner’s cousin, Dawn Molina Tanby.  The Petitioner sued them in the District Court on 30 October 2001 and they were each ordered to pay K300.00 compensation.
10.	The Respondent also had another adulterous affair with Dawn Matasororo in 2002 and lived with her at Top Town, Alotau.  In 2003, he then had another adulterous affair with a Monica Broome at Bwaguoia, Misima Island.
11.	In March 2006, the Respondent had yet another adulterous affair, this time with the Petitioner’s cousin Sibona Cadigan.  The Petitioner sued them in the District Court, and they were ordered to pay K1,000.00 compensation.  
12.	None of these adulterous affairs were condoned by the Petitioner nor did she collude with the Respondent let alone forgive him.
13.	If that were not enough, the Respondent then had yet another adulterous affair, this time with the Petitioner’s younger sister Stephanie Cadigan. This affected the Petitioner so much that she left her employment with Milne Bay Estates and relocated to Port Moresby with her children.

Habitual Cruelty
14.	I am satisfied from the Petitioner’s evidence that ever since the Respondent started having adulterous affairs, he subjected the Petitioner to conduct that when reasonably and objectively considered, constituted habitual cruelty.  These included treating the Petitioner with total contempt and disrespect.  He would often get drunk and get violent subjecting the Petitioner to violent beatings, verbal, offensive, insulting, threatening and defamatory abuses.
15.	On 14th of December 2005, the Petitioner secured a restraining Order against the Respondent, but the Respondent continued to contact her and assault and harass her. The Petitioner then applied for another restraining order sometime in 2007 but it was never pursued because her lawyer passed away.
16.	Now, considering these facts against the principles in Brennan v Brennan [1973] PNGLR 372, I do find that the conducts complained of constituted cruelty and that they were grave and weighty, so I find this ground proved.
 Separation
17.	The last ground is that of separation. I find that in 2007 the Respondent left their matrimonial home to travel to Australia, but upon his return did not come to his matrimonial home but instead relocated to his village at Daio. In 2010 the Respondent returned to the matrimonial home when he did not have anywhere else to go or the means to support himself. Even though he lived with the Petitioner they did not have intimate or sexual relations. It was during this time that the Respondent had the affair with the Petitioner’s younger sister Stephanie. Soon after that the Petitioner left her employment with Milne Bay Estates and moved to Port Moresby. There she found a job with JDA Workman to fend for herself and the children. And in November 2012 she returned to Alotau and has not had any contact with the Respondent whatsoever ever since. I find therefore also that parties have not resumed cohabitation, have been separated for more than 5 years and that there is no real likelihood of them coming back together. I find therefore that the ground of separation has also been proven. 
Children
18.	There are children to the marriage. These being –
•	Melisa Stacy Jones	- 		DOB	15/4/96 - 23 years
•	Jason Gregory Jones	-	DOB	15/8/97 - 22 years
•	Nathan Allan Jones	-	DOB 	14/12/01 - 17 years and 9 months.
19.	As we can see two of these children are now adults, so I do not think that any orders in respect of welfare or access are appropriate. However, Nathan Allan Jones is 3 months shy of the age of majority (18 years). 

ORDERS
20.	In conclusion I am satisfied that all the grounds relied upon in this petition have been proven, and I therefore make the following orders:
1.	A Decree Nisi for the dissolution of the marriage of Fiona Laisa Jones and Steven Gregory Jones is granted.
2.	Custody of the child Nathan Allan Jones is granted to the Petitioner Fiona Laisa Jones with reasonable access to the Respondent.
3.	Parties to meet their own cost.
________________________________________________________________
Public Solicitor:	Lawyer for the Petitioner