A WOMAN of Lusaka’s Lilanda township told the Matero Local Court that her husband inspects her private parts when he returns home from work to ensure she has not been entertaining other men in his absence.
Judy Mumba told the court that her husband Misheck Lungu, 37, is overly suspicious, always accusing her of having extra-marital affairs.
“Lungu accuses me of having extra-marital affairs with his close friends. I have asked him to trust me but he is convinced I engage in sexual relations with other men in his absence so he inspects me by inserting his fingers in me.
“His jealousy pushes him to do weird things. He has a lot of friends who visit us even when he is not around. I do not understand the reason he now accuses me of having an affair with one of them,” she said.
Mumba was narrating before senior court magistrates Lewis Mumba and Pauline Newa, in a case in which she sued Lungu for marriage reconciliation.
The two got married in 2008 but that they have no children together. Mumba has three children from a previous relationship.
Mumba told the court that she is a faithful wife who has not been with any other man besides her husband.
And Lungu, who refused to reconcile with his wife, said he was fed up with her behaviour.
“I had travelled to the village and upon my return, one of my friends told me that my close friend had been visiting my wife in my absence. Even her children confirmed it. I had warned her not to allow him in the house but she does not listen,” he said.
Lungu told the court that when the two got married, all was well in their marriage until Mumba decided to have an affair with his close friend.
“My friend visits my house, especially in my absence and every time he goes home, she prepares food for him. My other friends and neighbours have also complained about his behaviour and have tipped me about the affair. Yet, she still denies it,” he said.
Lungu told the court that Mumba does not also respect him as a husband and man of the house.
Passing judgment, the court dismissed the case because no bride price was paid for the couple’s union. The court ordered both parties to share household property equally.