[2007] KEHC 3381 (KLR)
The court found that the petitioner had suffered both verbal and conduct-based cruelty from the respondent, including isolation from her family, abusive communications, lack of support during hospitalization, and being ordered out of the matrimonial home. The respondent did not challenge the evidence, having...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2007] KEHC 3381 (KLR)
- Parties
- Petitioner: KRSS; Respondent: RHS
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- ? 66 of 2006
- Procedural Posture
- Divorce Petition / Judgment
- Outcome
- petition allowed; marriage dissolved
- Judges
- JA Aluoch
- Legal Topics
- Divorce, Cruelty, Marriage Dissolution
- 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
KRSS
Petitioner
RHS
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Divorce Petition / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the petitioner suffered cruelty at the hands of the respondent sufficient to warrant dissolution of marriage.
- 2 Whether the petitioner condoned the alleged cruelty or colluded in presenting the petition.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the petitioner had suffered both verbal and conduct-based cruelty from the respondent, including isolation from her family, abusive communications, lack of support during hospitalization, and being ordered out of the matrimonial home. The respondent did not challenge the evidence, having withdrawn both the answer and cross-petition. The court was satisfied that the cruelty suffered by the petitioner was sufficient to make further cohabitation intolerable and that the marriage had irretrievably broken down. There was no evidence of condonation or collusion. Accordingly, the court granted the dissolution of the marriage solemnized on 16th October 2002.
Court Disposition
petition allowed; marriage dissolved
Orders
- The marriage solemnized on 16th October 2002 at the office of the Registrar General in Mombasa is dissolved.
- A decree nisi to issue today and to be made absolute within one month from today.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
29 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT NAIROBI
MILIMANI LAW COURTS
Divorce Case 66 of 2006
KRSS……………..PETITIONER
VERSUS
RHS…………….………RESPONDENT
JUDGMENT
KRSS, petitioned the court for an order to dissolve his marriage to RSS, on the grounds of cruelty.
The respondent filed an answer to the petition and also cross-petitioned for divorce also on grounds of cruelty.
The petitioner replied to the cross-petition and prayed the court to have it dismissed with costs.
On the day of the hearing, however, counsel for the respondent applied to withdraw the cross-petition filed on 19. 7.2006. I granted the order, and the cross-petition dated 17. 7.2006 was subsequently withdrawn with no order as to costs.
The answer to the petition was also withdrawn at the request of counsel for the respondent, on the same day. The answer too, was dated 17th July, 2006.
With the above orders having been recorded, the petition remained undefended.
The petitioner, KRSS, got married to the respondent on 16th October, 2002 at the Registrar General’s office in Nairobi on 16th October 2002. A copy of the marriage certificate was attached to the petition as the original on was with the respondent.
The couple lived and cohabited on shown in para 2 of the petition. There are no children of the marriage. Both are resident in Kenya and are Kenyan citizens. The petitioner recalled that her husband filed a divorce case against her in 2005, but subsequently withdraw it on 6th April, 2005, but she then filed this cause on 12th May 2006, seeking divorce on grounds of cruelty. She lamented that she suffered verbal abuses both from her husband and his relatives. That she was not allowed to visit any relative, and they too could not visit her. That further, her husband’s family found fault with her family all the time so she could not visit her family though they lived in the same city as herself. She was only allowed to talk to them on the phone, but with restriction.
The petitioner noticed that her husband did nothing to sort out this situation. Instead, he sent her “abusive SMS messages” on her mobile phone.
The petitioner felt traumatized and was admitted at Mombasa hospital for 4 days. Her husband never visited her.
Upon discharge, she went back to the same house but her husband was never there for her.
On 15. 8.2004, her husband told her that he wanted her out as he was involved with another woman. He referred to marriage to her as “a mistake” and ordered her out of the house.
This was a blow to the petitioner. She was totally devastated and felt she could not continue with the marriage and in any event the respondent asked her to leave, so she left. This was on 16. 8.2004. He refused to buy her air ticket back to Nairobi, so she had to buy one by herself.
The petitioner prayed the court to dissolve her marriage to the respondent. She confirmed that she has not condoned her husband’s cruelty, and has not presented this petition in collusion with him. She also confirmed that she is not asking for any other relief.
From the above evidence which was not challenged by the respondent, I am satisfied that the petitioner has suffered cruelty at the hands of her husband and she testified. This was both verbal and by conduct, physical because she was traumatized by what he said and also his actions.
This is a marriage which cannot be salvaged due to the persistent cruelty of the respondent. I therefore grant an order to dissolve the marriage solemnized on 16th October 2002, at the office of the Registrar General in Mombasa.
I direct that the decree nisi do issue today and the same be made absolute within a period of one month from today.
Dated at Nairobi this 4th day of October, 2007.
JOYCE ALUOCH
JUDGE