A court has ordered a separated couple to share equally the cost of raising their three children, rejecting a bid to make the father shoulder the financial burden alone.
Bungoma Senior Resident Magistrate T.O. Omono said both parents have a responsibility to provide for their children, especially where their incomes are almost equal.
The magistrate ordered the couple, DA and her estranged husband AW, to equally meet the children’s upkeep and general maintenance costs.
They will also share the school fees and school-related expenses equally in the children’s current schools until the end of the academic year.
The court further gave the parents equal legal custody, meaning both must participate in major decisions concerning the children’s education, religion and medical care.
The dispute involved three children, identified in court as EW, SI and AJ.
Ms DA had asked the court to order Mr AW to pay interim monthly maintenance for the children’s food, schooling, medical care and other needs.
She said she had been solely providing for the children despite Mr AW being employed by the Kenya Defence Forces.
He said he was also providing their medical care through his insurance cover and asked the court not to disrupt the existing arrangement on where the children lived.
The court found that the children’s medical needs were already being catered for through the father’s medical cover.
But the magistrate said this did not remove the need for both parents to contribute towards their other needs.
Both parents have a responsibility to provide for their children, especially where their incomes are almost equal.
Photo credit: Shutterstock
The court considered the financial information supplied by both sides and found that their net monthly incomes were almost equal.
Ms DA affidavit showed that she earned a net salary of Sh27,669 a month.
The father also provided details of his KDF salary, expenses and other financial obligations.
The magistrate took issue with the mother’s position that the father should fully maintain the children.
“It is evident from the authority above that the Plaintiff/Applicant cannot purport to require the Defendant/Respondent to maintain the children alone, yet the parties herein are earning almost the same monthly income,” Mr Omono said in the August 20, 2026 ruling.
He then ordered: “In the circumstances, this court orders the parties herein to equally contribute towards the children’s upkeep and general maintenance in the interim.”
The father had previously been paying their fees in public schools before the mother moved them to other schools, including a private institution.
The magistrate said parents should agree on the schools their children attend, taking into account their financial ability.
“However, the foregoing does not mean that the Plaintiff/Applicant should solely continue to cater for the children’s school fees and school-related expenses in the interim. The Defendant/Applicant must also support the children in their educational journey,” the magistrate said.
The children will therefore remain in their current schools until the academic year ends, with both parents sharing the fees and related costs equally.
After that, the parents must sit down and agree on schools the father can afford.
If they fail to agree, the father can pay the amount he had previously been spending on the children in their former public schools, while the mother meets any balance.
If there is any separation, there is a need for peaceful co-parenting, where both parents put aside their differences for the benefit of the child.
Photo credit: Shutterstock
EW is currently staying with paternal relatives, while SI and AJ are living with their maternal grandmother.
The three children appeared before the court on June 18 and gave their views on where they wanted to stay.
Their wishes, together with the circumstances of both parents, influenced the court’s decision to maintain the existing arrangement.
The magistrate noted that the parents’ jobs and places of work made it difficult for either of them to have all the children physically in their care.
Although EW was formally in his father’s custody, he was not living with him at Thika Barracks but with paternal relatives.
The court therefore ordered that the existing physical custody arrangement remain unchanged until the main case is determined.
“The status quo on the children’s physical/actual custody be maintained pending the hearing and the determination of this suit,” Mr Omono ordered.
At the same time, the parents were given equal legal custody.
Although the magistrate acknowledged the error, he said throwing out the case would risk leaving the children without support while another application was filed.
“Striking out the instant Application for being fatally defective will militate against the best interests of the children herein since their basic needs will remain in limbo pending the filing of a proper Application,” the magistrate said.
The court ultimately ordered the parents to share the children’s upkeep and school costs, maintain the current physical custody arrangement and jointly make major decisions affecting the children.
