[2015] KEHC 1775 (KLR)

[2015] KEHC 1775 (KLR)

The court found that the marriage had irretrievably broken down due to the Respondent's admitted desertion and the parties' prolonged separation of nearly 15 years. The Petitioner proved her case on a balance of probabilities, and the Respondent did not contest the grounds for divorce. Regarding child maintenance, the court held that both parents share parental responsibility, but the Respondent, being in formal employment with a steady income, should pay school fees and related expenses directly to the schools for both children, while the Petitioner, though unemployed, is responsible for food, clothing, and shelter. The court rejected any arrangement that would discriminate between the...

Citation
[2015] KEHC 1775 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: T.P.J; Respondent: J.K.R.
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Commercial Courts)
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Judgment Date
9 October 2015
Case Number
Divorce Cause 56 of 2011
Procedural Posture
Divorce Cause / Judgment
Outcome
Petition allowed; marriage dissolved; orders on child maintenance and custody issued.
Legal Topics
Divorce, Child Maintenance, Custody and Access, Parental Responsibility
Source Language
English
Family and Children Divorce Child Maintenance Custody and Access Parental Responsibility

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 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

T.P.J

Applicant

J.K.R.

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Divorce Cause / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the marriage between the Petitioner and Respondent should be dissolved.
  2. 2 Who is responsible for the maintenance and upkeep of the children and what is a reasonable amount in the circumstances?

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the marriage had irretrievably broken down due to the Respondent's admitted desertion and the parties' prolonged separation of nearly 15 years. The Petitioner proved her case on a balance of probabilities, and the Respondent did not contest the grounds for divorce. Regarding child maintenance, the court held that both parents share parental responsibility, but the Respondent, being in formal employment with a steady income, should pay school fees and related expenses directly to the schools for both children, while the Petitioner, though unemployed, is responsible for food, clothing, and shelter. The court rejected any arrangement that would discriminate between the...

Court Disposition

Petition allowed; marriage dissolved; orders on child maintenance and custody issued.

Orders

  • The marriage between the Petitioner and Respondent is dissolved; decree nisi to issue forthwith and decree absolute in 6 months.
  • Both parties have legal custody of the children; Petitioner has physical custody; Respondent to have access upon mutual agreement.