Posted by Amarachi on Mon 02nd Dec, 2024 - tori.ng
Magistrate Meenal Narotam, after hearing both parties, ruled in favour of Chihota, granting her a protection order against Hizaki.
A Zimbabwean woman, Nancy Chihota, has sought court intervention against her husband’s unending demands for s3xual intercourse, citing emotional and physical distress caused by his actions.
In her testimony, she accused her husband, Benny Hizaki, of forcing her into intimate acts even during deeply personal moments, including her mother’s funeral.
“With tears still on my cheeks, he forced himself on me,” Chihota told the court, recounting an incident just before she departed to mourn her mother. Despite her grief and exhaustion, she said Hizaki’s demands continued unabated upon her return from the funeral.
Chihota revealed that Hizaki insists on daily intimacy regardless of her condition, stating, “He insists on being intimate every day when he comes home from work, even if I’m on my monthly periods.” She also disclosed that Hizaki had threatened to marry a second wife if she continued to resist his advances, a threat that has further strained their relationship. “I still love him, but because of the way he acts, sometimes I feel like I’m losing interest in him,” she admitted.
In his defence, Hizaki leveled a shocking accusation against Chihota, claiming she had concealed her HIV status. “She has been taking antiretroviral drugs for the past five years, and she never told me,” Hizaki alleged.
He expressed feelings of betrayal, saying, “I feel like I should punish her for those five years.” He said despite this, he maintained his love for his wife, though he admitted the revelation had fractured their trust. “I also love her, but she can’t be trusted,” he remarked.
Magistrate Meenal Narotam, after hearing both parties, ruled in favour of Chihota, granting her a protection order against Hizaki. The ruling highlighted the importance of setting boundaries within a marriage and emphasized mutual respect and understanding between partners.
The case has ignited discussions around the complexities of marital relationships, the limits of conjugal rights, and the need for partners to prioritize each other’s emotional and physical well-being.