19760917 TZHC Mwanza

AT_!4WPNZA (i) CIVIL APPEAL NO.. 108 OP 1975 (Prom the decisioi of the District Court of Tarime in Civil Appeal No.. 38 of 1975 Before N.H 0 BLdeberi, Esq., District Ma:strcte and Siren Primary Court Original Civil Case No. 91 of'1974).. S.PiVi' !JILI iiAPWJv . . .. . .. . .• . . . • .. •:.. • • • • • • , . versus.: wiNK3Rtjrc/IT4 .• .. a1.. .... •.•.• . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . .6 JU]XENT IiACANGA, J. The respondent petitioned for divorce in Sirari :riiar Court alleging that the appellant was guilty of wilful neglect and constructive desertion. The trial court granted the divorce and further ordered that she should have custody of the children till the children became 7 years of age The appellant was or.ered to pay she.. o/ monthly as naaintd.ncace for the children. Pie is appealing againit both the dissolution of the marriage and tho order for mcintainances The respondent atated in her evilenco that althongh the appellant never chased her away from the matrimonial home he was in the habit of telling her to go to her parents and that he no longer wanted her as a wife She also stated that the appellant used to beat her and that he never brought her clothes She was supported by her witnesses an her allegations of frequent dsaults and hor assertion that the appellant never bought her clothes The appellant denied the allegations and asOerts that the respondent was being

prossurisod by her relatives toleave her He admitted having beaten the ropondent only once and that was when she refused to comply with a request. The trial court found that although the reasons given by the respondent were too trivial to be g'ounds for divorce it was apparent that the p'ties could not live together It therefore hold that the brc:kdown of the marxiage was irrepearable It therefore granted the clovorce prayed for. The parties to this suit wore married in either 1971 O1 1972 end of 1974 when the respondent and they lived toOether till to.iards the left the matronicLl home penranently ilthough it was established that the appellant boat the ropondent on ocassiorLs, wilful negJt of the respondent was not proved. It appears to me that the respondent is responsible for the breakdown of the marriage since the alleged cruelty an her was just isolated incidents She nopeared before me at the hearing of this appeal and she roiterated her decision not to go back to the appellant whatever the outcome of this appesl Thus although the appellant is not guilty of any serious matrimonial offence it is apparent that the breakdovin o the marriage, for which the respondent is responsible, is irrepearable. I would for that reason upheld the trial courtt a decision Ond di;miss the appeal in as far as granting of the divorce is cone emed. The appeal against the order of maintoinance

seams to hare some morit The appellant is a peasant with no imown monthly incame. It was under these circumstances improper to order monthly payment of iñaintainence He however has responaib ility for maintaining his own children. He is advised to potition the court for either custody of the children or variation of the maintainance order The order requiring him to pay shs 50/— monthly for the maintainance of the children is set asidle'o , The court shall have regard the appellaat;s sttion in life .'hen deciding on the monnerof the method of payment of the maintaince if the seine is to be vaniied . .- ... . ./ 2. ... . In the realt. tha order for maintainance i e.t aside The appeai is otheriiso d prt .is o b r its o 1 cot'.

2. JUDGiI- A- - 17/ 9/,'