Please Wait. Searching ...
|Case Number:||Divorce Cause 50 of 2010|
|Parties:||J.V.C v V.K.C|
|Date Delivered:||08 Apr 2010|
|Court:||High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)|
|Citation:||J.V.C v V.K.C  eKLR|
|Disclaimer:||The information contained in the above segment is not part of the judicial opinion delivered by the Court. The metadata has been prepared by Kenya Law as a guide in understanding the subject of the judicial opinion. Kenya Law makes no warranties as to the comprehensiveness or accuracy of the information|
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
J U D G M E N T
The petitioner and the respondent were on 22nd February 2002 married according to Hindu Marriage Rites at A[particulars withheld] in the Republic of India. After the said marriage, the petitioner and the respondent cohabited together as husband and wife at their matrimonial home at Kolobot Road, Nairobi. The marriage was blessed with one issue, a son, born on 28th March 2005. According to the petitioner, since 1st December 2006, the respondent had deserted from the matrimonial home. The petitioner explained that the cause of the desertion of the respondent from the matrimonial home was due to irreconcilable differences that emerged in the marriage. Effort by the elders of the community to reconcile the petitioner and the respondent has been in vain. The petitioner therefore prayed that the marriage between herself and the respondent be dissolved by this court granting the petition for divorce. She prayed to be granted custody of the child of the marriage.
The respondent was duly served with a copy of the petition. He neither entered appearance nor filed an answer to the petition. This court was satisfied that the respondent was duly served. It directed the respondent to proceed with the hearing of her case, the absence of the respondent notwithstanding. The petitioner basically reiterated the contents of the petition in her testimony before court. This court has carefully considered the said evidence. It was clear to the court that the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent has irretrievably broken down. Since going their separate ways, on 1st December 2006, the petitioner and the respondent have not resumed cohabitation. From the testimony of the petitioner, it was apparent that it is unlikely that the petitioner and the respondent will be reconciled. This court therefore holds that the petitioner established, to the required standard of proof on a balance of probabilities, the ground of desertion in the petition for divorce.
DATED AT NAIROBI THIS 8TH DAY OF APRIL, 2010