[2015] KEHC 4001 (KLR)

[2015] KEHC 4001 (KLR)

The court found that the petitioner had proved, on a balance of probabilities, that the respondent committed adultery, deserted the matrimonial home since 2008, and treated the petitioner with cruelty. The respondent failed to contest the petition or provide any evidence to the contrary. The court held that the marriage had irretrievably broken down as defined under Section 66(6) of the Marriage Act, due to the respondent's desertion, neglect of parental responsibilities, and ongoing cohabitation with another woman. The court further found that the petitioner was entitled to custody of the children and maintenance, as the respondent had failed in his duties as a father and husband. The...

Citation
[2015] KEHC 4001 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: A.W; Respondent: C.M.M
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Commercial Courts)
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Judgment Date
5 June 2015
Case Number
Divorce Cause 112 of 2014
Procedural Posture
Divorce Cause / Judgment
Outcome
petition_upheld
Legal Topics
Divorce, Custody of Children, Maintenance, Adultery, Cruelty, Desertion
Source Language
English
Family and Children Divorce Custody of Children Maintenance Adultery Cruelty Desertion

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

A.W

Applicant

C.M.M

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Divorce Cause / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the marriage between the petitioner and respondent has irretrievably broken down under Section 66 of the Marriage Act.
  2. 2 Whether the respondent committed adultery, cruelty, and desertion as grounds for dissolution of marriage.
  3. 3 Whether the petitioner is entitled to custody of the children and maintenance.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the petitioner had proved, on a balance of probabilities, that the respondent committed adultery, deserted the matrimonial home since 2008, and treated the petitioner with cruelty. The respondent failed to contest the petition or provide any evidence to the contrary. The court held that the marriage had irretrievably broken down as defined under Section 66(6) of the Marriage Act, due to the respondent's desertion, neglect of parental responsibilities, and ongoing cohabitation with another woman. The court further found that the petitioner was entitled to custody of the children and maintenance, as the respondent had failed in his duties as a father and husband. The...

Court Disposition

petition_upheld

Orders

  • The marriage between the petitioner and respondent is dissolved.
  • Custody of the children V W and V W is granted to the petitioner.