[2002] KEHC 320 (KLR)
The court found that the respondent had, on a balance of probabilities, proved cruelty by the petitioner, justifying the dissolution of the marriage. The petitioner failed to prove cruelty against the respondent. The petitioner's prayer for dissolution was dismissed, but custody of the child was granted to the...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2002] KEHC 320 (KLR)
- Parties
- Petitioner: P.N.M; Respondent: J.W.N
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Commercial Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Divorce Cause 156 of 1999
- Procedural Posture
- Divorce Cause / Judgment
- Outcome
- Petitioner's petition for dissolution dismissed; respondent's cross-petition for dissolution allowed; custody of child to petitioner; maintenance to respondent; each party to bear own costs.
- Judges
- JM Khamoni
- Legal Topics
- Divorce, Custody of Children, Maintenance, Cruelty, Dissolution of Marriage
- 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
P.N.M
Petitioner
J.W.N
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Divorce Cause / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the petitioner proved cruelty by the respondent to justify dissolution of marriage.
- 2 Whether the respondent proved cruelty by the petitioner to justify dissolution of marriage.
- 3 Who should be granted custody of the child of the marriage.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the respondent had, on a balance of probabilities, proved cruelty by the petitioner, justifying the dissolution of the marriage. The petitioner failed to prove cruelty against the respondent. The petitioner's prayer for dissolution was dismissed, but custody of the child was granted to the petitioner. The respondent's cross-petition for dissolution was allowed, and a decree nisi was issued, not to be made absolute for six months. The respondent was granted maintenance, subject to agreement on amount and mode of payment, and only as long as she remains unmarried. Each party was ordered to bear its own costs. The court scheduled a mention for recording the maintenance...
Court Disposition
Petitioner's petition for dissolution dismissed; respondent's cross-petition for dissolution allowed; custody of child to petitioner; maintenance to respondent; each party to bear own costs.
Orders
- Petitioner's prayer for dissolution of marriage dismissed.
- Petitioner's prayer for custody of the child granted.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
21 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI
DIVORCE CAUSE NO. 156 OF 1999
P.N.M ……………………………. PETITIONER
VERSUS
J.W.N……………..…..……….. RESPONDENT
JUDGMENT
In this matter the Petitioner who married the Respondent under customary law in 1985 and subsequently converted that marriage to a Christian Marriage under the Marriage Act on 5th August 1989 has petitioned for divorce and custody of the only child of the marriage relying on the ground of cruelty.
The Respondent has cross-petitoned for divorce also relying on the ground of cruelty. In the cross petition she also prays for custody of their child and maintenance. During the hearing however; she has told the court she does not want custody of the child but wants maintenance.
Evidence is that it was the petitioner who, sometime in 1994, decided on his own to leave the Respondent on the matrimonial home built at the petitioner’s farm in Nyandarua and that since then, the two have never lived together again as husband and wife.
Subsequently the Respondent went to leave with her mother and now lives with her sister at Gachie in Nairobi having had a second child with a boyfriend after the separation with her husband.
However, the petitioner’s petition does not talk of the ground of adultery and the Respondent’s cross-petition does not talk of the ground of desertion just as the petitioner’s petition does not.
I have carefully considered what was brought to my attention during the hearing and it is my humble opinion that while the Respondent, on the balance of probabilities, has succeeded in proving the ground of cruelty against the petitioner, the petitioner has failed to do the same against the Respondent. The evidence is on record.
It follows, therefore, that the petitioner’s petition herein be and is hereby dismissed in terms of prayer (a) relating to dissolution of the marriage. The same petition however, be and is hereby allowed in terms of prayer (b) relating to custody of Robert Muriithi the only issue of the marriage.
The Respondent’s cross petition be and is hereby granted in terms of prayer (b) as to the dissolution of the marriage, excluding costs. The marriage to be dissolved and a decree nisi be issued; not to be made absolute until after the expiration of six months.
Prayer © in the Respondent’s cross petition relating to custody, care and control of the child, R.M, is hereby, marked withdrawn and since the petitioner is good enough to recognize that the Respondent, as the mother of R.M, deserves maintenance from the petitioner, prayer (d) in the Respondent’s cross petition with regard to maintenance be and is hereby granted subject to an agreement by the parties as to how much should be paid and as to the mode of payment provided that such maintenance will continue only as long as the Respondent remains unmarried.
With regard to prayer © in the petitioner’s petition as is with prayer (e) in the Respondent’s cross petition, each party to bear its own costs of the petition and cross petition.
Further, there be a mention on ------------------- for the court to record the agreed amount of the maintenance to be paid by the Petitioner to the
Respondent and the mode of payment.
Dated this 23rd day of July 2002.
J.M. KHAMONI JUDGE