An Akure Magistrate’s Court has issued a restraining order preventing Mr. Ademola Adesina from loitering or spending the night at the family home of his estranged wife, Mrs. Iyabo Omoleye.
The order followed a court petition by Omoleye, who accused her husband of neglecting his responsibilities toward their children and being abusive throughout their marriage.
She revealed that Adesina abandoned the family for over six months and only returned to forcibly claim the children despite his long absence and failure to provide support.
Omoleye further stated that Adesina consistently refused to care for the children, allegedly stating that he gained no personal benefit from doing so.
She also accused him of reappearing solely to harass her and loiter around her family residence, where she currently lives with the children.
In his defense, Adesina gave a contrasting account, telling the court that their home was peaceful until he was imprisoned.
After his release, he claimed to have found his wife three months pregnant—an alleged pregnancy she later terminated—raising suspicions of infidelity during his incarceration.
He also alleged that his wife mocked his sexual performance, comparing him unfavorably to her supposed lovers.
Adesina added that he is now homeless and unemployed, with his wife having taken over their apartment rent and evicted him.
He lamented that he had no choice but to sleep at the doorstep of his wife’s family home.
Adesina also claimed that his children had been brainwashed and now barely recognized him as their father.
In his ruling, Hon. Justice A.E. Akeredolu advised Adesina to focus on rebuilding his life and securing a livelihood instead of returning to his wife’s family home.
“The respondent is hereby restrained from going to sleep in the wife’s family house premises,” the court ruled.
“The issue of access to and maintenance of the children will be decided on the next adjournment date.
Despite the clear directive, Adesina insisted that he had nowhere else to go and would continue to stay at the location.
In response, the court warned that any violation of the order would result in severe consequences.
The case was adjourned until July 1 for further hearing.
