A man’s plea for review of a child maintenance cost that he termed excessive have fallen on deaf ears after they were rejected by the court.
Identified as TKY, the man from the coast had complained that he could not afford the monthly maintenance demands that he had been ordered to provide for his child by a magistrates court. The child lives with the mother.
TKY had hoped to reduce the monthly upkeep due to other responsibilities, but his request was flatly rejected.
The father was instructed by a magistrates court to obtain medical insurance for the minor, provide monthly maintenance for the child covering expenses related to food and entertainment, and directly pay the child's school fees. Payment of Sh17,500 for the child’s food and entertainment alone was to be made on or before the 5th day of each month.
On the other hand, the mother was responsible for providing shelter, clothing, uniform, stationery, shoes, and payment of utility bills for the child.
Malindi High Court Judge Stephen Githinji refused to interfere with the amount, stating that the magistrate's court had properly analysed TKY's financial situation before determining the monthly upkeep.
The High Court ruled that maintenance orders should not be oppressive or punitive to any party and should instead be made in the best interests of the children.
Justice Githinji emphasised that these orders should consider the needs of the children while also taking into account the financial status of the parent.
“That said, and of which I fully agree with, I find that the appeal lacks merit and the same is hereby dismissed,” said the judge.
The case arose from a dispute between TKY and the child’s mother, BMS, regarding custody of the minor, both in terms of actual and legal custody.
Initially, the case was brought before a magistrate’s court in Malindi. After considering the case, the magistrate granted actual and legal custody of the minor to the biological mother while allowing the father unlimited visitation rights.
TKY was dissatisfied with this decision and chose to appeal, expressing dissatisfaction with the order to pay Sh17,500 per month for food and entertainment.
“This amount is unfounded, unreasonable and unjustifiable as it was arrived at without any basis and consideration of my financial capability,” he said.
TKY lamented that the magistrate made a fundamental error in fact and law by not recognising that maintenance responsibilities, like parental responsibilities, should be shared equally between the parents of the minor, regardless of whether they live together or not.
TKY said he was unfairly required to pay the amount he considered excessive, for the minor's support and also to cover the most essential and costly needs of the minor.
“The amount is excessive and exorbitant considering that I have other obligations including taking out a medical insurance cover and paying of school fees towards the minor,” he said.
Furthermore, he contended that he is the primary provider for his extended family and also supports the expenses of another child born out of wedlock.
However, the judge remained unmoved and refused to reduce the financial obligations, citing a thorough examination of the man's financial situation prior to assigning the responsibility.
The judge concurred with the lower court's decision that all children should be treated equally and that as the man is already supporting one of his children, he cannot neglect the maintenance of his other child based on the fact that he is already supporting another child.
The court affirmed that both parties shared equal parental responsibility for the minor and that the child had the right to fair treatment and the use of TKY's name in official documents.
