Man Seeking to Reduce Child Support Loses Appeal


A Malindi High Court has rejected a plea to reduce the amount paid for child support by a man from the coast, identified as TKY.

The man complained that the child support set at Kshs 17,500 for the child’s food and entertainment was too high for his pockets. 

This amount was to be paid on or before the 5th day of every month. He had also been ordered by a magistrate’s court to pay the child’s school fees and get medical insurance for the minor.

The child’s mother, on the other hand, was to provide clothing, uniform, shelter, shoes and stationery. She would also pay the child’s utility bills.

A photo of someone counting Kenyan money

Photo

AJ Kenyan Safari

A disagreement between the child’s parents was the course of the custody battle that led to these initial rulings, where the mother was granted actual and legal custody of the minor while the father was permitted unlimited visitation rights.

TKY chose to appeal the ruling, arguing that the court should have ordered an equal share of responsibilities between the parents.

He protested that the ruling was unfair, giving him way more responsibilities to fulfill than it had given the mother.

This, he said, would strain him financially since he is the breadwinner for his extended family, in addition to financially supporting another child born out of wedlock.

Malindi High Court Judge Stephen Githinji denied the father’s request stating that the court that ordered child support had properly analyzed his finances when determining the amount.

Githinji dismissed the appeal as lacking merit, thus fully agreeing with the previous ruling of the magistrate’s court.

He noted that maintenance orders should be made in the best interests of a child taking into consideration their needs.

Furthermore, while the maintenance orders should not be oppressive to any of the parties involved, the financial status of the parents must be considered.

He also ruled that the man should treat all his children equally, thus supporting another child out of wedlock would not suffice as a reason not to support another child of his.

An image of a legal scale and a gavel.

Photo

JSC





Source link