[2023] KEMC 116 (KLR)
The court found that the marriage between the petitioner and respondent had irretrievably broken down as contemplated under section 65 of the Marriage Act, 2014. The petitioner provided unchallenged evidence of the breakdown and lack of intention to reconcile. The respondent did not contest the petition. The court...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2023] KEMC 116 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: JM; Respondent: EN
- Court
- Magistrate's Court
- Court Station
- Chief Magistrate's Court (Milimani Law Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Divorce Cause E1118 of 2022
- Procedural Posture
- Divorce Cause / Judgment
- Outcome
- petition allowed; marriage dissolved
- Judges
- JP Aduke
- Legal Topics
- Dissolution of Marriage, Irretrievable Breakdown, Christian Marriage, Uncontested Divorce
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
JM
Applicant
EN
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Divorce Cause / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the marriage between the parties has irretrievably broken down under the Marriage Act, 2014.
- 2 Whether the petitioner is entitled to an order of dissolution of marriage.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the marriage between the petitioner and respondent had irretrievably broken down as contemplated under section 65 of the Marriage Act, 2014. The petitioner provided unchallenged evidence of the breakdown and lack of intention to reconcile. The respondent did not contest the petition. The court relied on statutory grounds and persuasive case law to conclude that it cannot compel parties to remain in a marriage where one party seeks dissolution. Accordingly, the court granted the order for dissolution of marriage, issued a decree nisi to be made absolute in 30 days, and ordered each party to bear their own costs.
Court Disposition
petition allowed; marriage dissolved
Orders
- The marriage between JM and EN is hereby dissolved.
- Decree nisi to issue and be made absolute in 30 days.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
22 paragraphs
JM v EN (Divorce Cause E1118 of 2022) [2023] KEMC 116 (KLR) (3 May 2023) (Judgment)
Neutral citation: [2023] KEMC 116 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the Chief Magistrate's Court (Milimani Law Courts)
Divorce Cause E1118 of 2022
JP Aduke, SRM
May 3, 2023
Between
JM
Petitioner
and
EN
Respondent
Judgment
1. The Petitioner filed the petition dated 6th Sept 2022 seeking a divorce on the ground of irretrievable breakdown of the marriage. Return of service on record shows that the respondent was served with the petition and annexures thereto. The respondent neither entered appearance nor filed a response. The petitioner filed an application seeking to have the petition proceed undefended. Return of service on record shows the petitioner served the respondent with the said application. These proceedings proceeded undefended.
2. The brief facts of the case are as contained in para 1-12 of the petition on record. In summary, JM and EN solemnized their marriage on 28th March 2010 in Church in Kenya. They have one issue together from the union, as at the date of writing this judgment. Both the Petitioner and respondent are domiciled in Kenya. The parties have no intentions of salvaging this marriage. The particulars of the grounds for divorce are outlined in the petition as follows:1. Irretrievable breakdown of the marriage;
3. At the hearing thereof, the petitioner relied on his petition and verifying affidavit on record as evidence in support of the petition for divorce. Notably, the petitioner averred that the contents of the petition remained true as at the date of the hearing. He prayed for an order of dissolution of the marriage.
4. The issue for determination before this court is whether or not the marriage between the parties merits an order of divorce under The Marriage Act, 2014 (hereafter, the Act).
5. The applicable law is s.65 of the Act (on dissolution of Christian marriages) which provides that the court may grant separation or divorce on the following grounds:1. adultery by the other spouse;2. cruelty by the other spouse;3. exceptional depravity by the other spouse;4. desertion by the other spouse for at least 3 years;5. the irretrievable breakdown of the marriage.
6. I have considered the particulars of the grounds outlined in the petition and how those have contributed to the irretrievable breakdown of the marriage as contemplated under s.65 of the Act. I have also noted the length of physical separation of the couple herein and relied on the reasoning of the court in JSM vs ENB[2015]. With respect to intention to salvage the union, I have noted the unequivocal terms of para 10 of the Petition on lack of such intention. The reasoning of the court in ROK v MJB and TPH v NVS 2017 eklr cannot be emphasized enough-“marriage is a voluntary union……this court cannot by any means order or compel the parties to remain married when the petitioner has categorically stated that she wants the same dissolved…”
7. Seeing as this court cannot force two adults to live together when there is no more love between them, I allow the petition dated 06th September 2022 before me on the following terms:1. the marriage between the two be and is hereby dissolved.2. Decree nisi do issue to be made absolute in 30 days.3. This being a family matter, each party to bear own costs.
ADUKE JEAL PRAXADES ATIENOSENIOR RESIDENT MAGISTRATEJUDGEMENT DATED AND SIGNED THIS 03RD MAY 2023. In the presence of:Court Assistant: BENJAMIN KOMBECounsel for the Petitioner- N/ACounsel for the Respondent: N/A