admin
of their children. Ms Sabarauta reduced the figure to US$500 after hearing evidence from both parties.
In her ruling, Ms Sabarauta noted that Keresiya lodged a claim for maintenance for her upkeep and their children but had nothing to prove the amount she wanted.
“The applicant’s claim was US$15 000. Since this claim was exorbitant, I expected her to prove to this court that the respondent was well within his means to afford the said amount,” she said.
Ms Sabarauta said that the respondent raised a point that the applicant had vacated the premises 14 days ago.
Thus, she had not shown the court how the respondent had failed to maintain his children.
Ms Sabarauta added, “Respondent offered to give the applicant US$300 to cater for all her children’s needs that being their school fees, medical bills, utility bills and so forth. He also offered to give the applicant vacant possession of their matrimonial home.”
In coming to her decision, Ms Sabarauta said that she had taken into consideration all the respondent has offered to do for the applicant and his children.
“It is reasonable and fair as it removes much burden on the applicant. US$300 for groceries is, however, a low amount as the applicant will need to buy various food stuffs to cater for the children,” she concluded.
In addition, Phiri was ordered to pay school fees, medical bills, buy uniforms, rentals, utility bills and pay the maid.
More to follow…….
Online Reporter