We have seen a lot of drama and twist to the ongoing marital crisis rocking the marriage of Nollywood actor, Yul Edochie and his erstwhile wife and mother of his four children, May Yul Edochie. It has actually gotten messier, especially with the court case involving the duo, with has produced shameful outcomes since its inception few months ago.
The latest being the outcome of their recent court session. In his latest defense in court following the allegation of adultery leveled against him by May, the actor (Yul Edochie) maintained that he’s not married to Judy Austin in any way. Citing that they are just business partners in the industry, making skits and comic movies/videos together.
Expectedly, that has triggered massive mixed reactions across social media platforms in the country, with many people citing the fact that Yul and Judy has two kids together and that they are cohabiting as well, as such, is enough evidence for May to win her case in court, which was equally echoed by May’s lead counsel, Emeka Ugwuonye of Due Process Advocates (DPA).
But none of these Netizens have actually taken their time to understand what the law says about adultery, as most of them are just following up the matter with lots of emotional sentiments, rather than being realistic. In as much as we are not in support of how the actor treated his wife, the fact remains that we must be guided by what the law says, since the case is in the court of law already.
First of all, Yul Edochie denied ever being married to Judy Austin, which many are citing the two children he has with Judy as an evidence which contradicts his claims. Well, the law doesn’t recognize a legal marriage based on the fact that he has kid/kids with Judy. He has only committed adultery, and what does the law say in all of these?
Adultery is actually a punishable offence under the Penal Code of Northern Nigeria, where section 387 and 388 stipulated a punishment of two years imprisonment or a fine for a proven case of adultery. But unfortunately, adultery is not punishable under the Criminal Code of the Southern part of Nigeria, but gives room for redress and subsequent compensation once the case is proven.
On the other hand, May can press for damages since section 31 of the Matrimonial Causes Act provides for such. Yes, it states that a party to a marriage can claim damages in a case of adultery since she did not condone the act as committed by her ex husband, Yul Edochie. But the said adultery must not have been committed for up to three years before such claims for damages is made.
Meanwhile, damages for adultery case are in form of compensation, and the following factors determines it; 1) hurt to family life, 2) the loss incurred by the claimant, 3) injury to the claimant’s feelings, honour, Image, personality, etc, 4) value of the defendant, being the adulterous spouse to the claimant/petitioner.
BIGAMY: This is were most people on social media are getting it totally wrong. They think that with the two kids Yul and Judy has already, that they have committed bigamy which is a criminal offense and punishable by the law, for at least seven (7) years imprisonment or an option of fine.
Bigamy being a case of being married to another while still into a legal marriage with another, is what most people think that Yul Edochie has committed. No, because there’s no legal documents to prove that Yul and Judy are legally married.
Now, understand this, adultery or living together is not enough or sufficient prove that bigamy has occurred. Meanwhile, Ochem and Emejuru in their paper on this matter made it clear that, “the offence of bigamy is not committed by undergoing any marriage ceremony but a ceremony which is capable of producing a valid marriage, save, for the subsistence of the first marriage”.
In other words, what May Yul Edochie May end up getting is a dissolution of their marriage, on the grounds that she doesn’t condone adultery committed by her husband with actress Judy Austin. Secondly, she will likely get compensation, depending on how well her legal team proves her case and the discretionary power of the trial judge.
