• The couple married in June 2008 and divorced in March last year.
• Even though the court gave her the actual custody, care and control, she is aggrieved that the father was given more access.
Image: FILE
A Nairobi court has dismissed an application by a woman who does not want to see her ex-husband even though they have shared custody of their son.
The woman, who got divorced from her husband last year in March, wanted the High Court to suspend the judgment of a lower court that gave both parents legal custody.
The couple married in June 2008. Even though the court gave her the actual custody, care and control, she is aggrieved that the father was given more access.
In his ruling, Justice Aggrey Muchelule declined to suspend the judgment of the lower court until he hears the appeal in full.
“In this instant case, the appellant and the respondents have divorced and the appellant does not want to see the respondent,” he noted.
The judge added, however, that the two are in a permanent relationship after getting a child during the marriage and the law imposes on them the obligation of bringing up the child.
“They may not like each other but they have to meet to review the education of the child, its medical needs, upkeep and so on,” he ruled.
Muchelule further said the two have to decide which school the child will go, and which hospital the child will visit.
“If the entire decree of the lower court is stayed, what happens to the orders therein in relation to the child?” he posed.
He said he is prepared to take the earliest dates available to hear the parties and determine the case.
In May last year, the children’s court ruled that the father was to have access to the child on alternative weekends and half of the school holidays.
The orders of the court were that both the mother and the father to personally pick and drop the child, a decision the woman has contested.
She complained that the order that she and her ex-husband personally drop and pick the child would bring the two into contact, yet they had divorced. She added that there could be occasions that she is not personally available.
The mother is aggrieved by some of the orders, especially paying more towards the upkeep and maintenance of the child, instead of equal responsibility.
The father was to cater for the school transport of 27,000 per year and provide Sh10,000 monthly for food, while the mother was to pay the child’s fees, provide clothing, rent and food.
The man opposed her appeal and stated that he is a responsible parent and had done nothing to warrant the stay of the judgment.
According to him, despite the orders of the lower court, his ex-wife had denied him access to the child. He further claimed that he was unemployed but had complied with the rest of the orders on upkeep.