Faure v Sinon (MA 290/2018 (arising in DV 159/2017)) [2021] SCSC 924 (22 June 2021)

SUPREME COURT OF SEYCHELLES Reportablel Not Reportable [2021] scsc4.b;2_ MA290/2018 Arising in DVI59/20 17 I Redact Petitioner In the matter between JOHN MAXIME FAURE (rep. by Serge Rouillon) and MARIE-THERESE CHRISTIANNE SINON (rep. by Nichol Gabriel) Respondent And In the matter of a Cross-Petition between MARIE- THERESE CHRISTIANNE SINON (rep. by Nichol Gabriel) Cross-Petitioner and JOHN MAXIME FAURE (rep. by Serge Rouillon) Cross-Respondent Neutral Citation: Faure v Sinon (MA290/2018) Before: Carolus J Summary: Matrimonial Property Adjustment - Matrimonial Causes Act Heard: 13 March & 29 October 2020 Delivered: 22 June 2021 [2021] scsc H.-(:J,... (22 June 2021). ORDER I. Each party is entitled to a half share of the matrimonial property comprising Title H4328 and the house and all developments thereon amounting to Rupees One Million Six Hundred and Twelve Thousand and Five Hundred (SCRI,612,500). Consequently: (a) The respondent shall pay to the petitioner the sum of Rupees One Million Six Hundred and Twelve Thousand and Five Hundred (SCRI,612,500) representing his share of the matrimonial property within six months of this judgment. (b) Upon payment of the said sum to the petitioner, he shall transfer his share in the said property to the respondent. (c) In the event that the respondent fails to effect payment as ordered under paragraph 1 the petitioner shall pay her the sum of Rupees One Million Six Hundred and Twelve Thousand and Five Hundred (SCRl,612,500) representing her share of the matrimonial property within the succeeding six months whereupon the respondent shall transfer the property to the petitioner's sole ownership. (d) In the event that neither party is able to comply with the foregoing the property shall be sold and the proceeds thereof shared 50:50 between the parties. 2. The petitioner is ordered to pay to the respondent the sum of Seychelles Rupees Seventeen Thousand Five Hundred (SCRI7,500) within three months of the date of this judgment as her share in vehicle Registration Number S 15720 as per his undertaking. JUDGMENT CAROLUSJ The. Petition [1] The Petitioner and the Respondent in the petition were married on the 9th April 1999. Their marriage was dissolved upon the conditional order of divorce dated 23rd November 2017 being made absolute on 9th February 2018. [2] The Petitioner has now petitioned this COUlt for "the final division of the parties matrimonial property Title H4328 and the house and improvements made thereon, in particular to declare theparties respectiveshares in the said matrimonialproperty". His petition is supported by an affidavit sworn by the petitioner dated 29th November 2018, which was later replaced by an "AMENDED AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT" dated 11th March 2020, the contents of which are similar to those of the first affidavit except for the addition of three paragraphs (11, 12 and 16) and amendments to paragraph 13. [3] The respondent filed an "AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT". Although she has not filed a cross petition, in her affidavit she refers to herself as the respondent in the petition and cross petitioner in the cross-petition. She opposes the petition and avers that she is entitled to more than half of land title H4328 with the matrimonial home thereon and prays for an order that Title H4328 with the matrimonial home thereon to be transferred in her sole name. In such a case she avers that she is prepared to pay the petitioner the value of his share in the matrimonial property. Tn the alternative she prays inter alia for an order that the petitioner/ cross-respondent pays her the share of the matrimonial home to which she is entitled. The respondent further prays for a share in the business S. A. F. according to her contributions thereto and a half share of the value of Toyota Rush Registration Number SI5720. [4] Both parties testified at the hearing of the petition. The court also heard two witnesses for the petitioner namely his mother Mrs. Louisianne Hoareau and Mr. Nigel Antoine Roucou a quantity surveyor. The Evidence Affidavit of the Petitioner in support of the Petition [5] In his affidavit dated 11th March 2020, the petitioner avers that during the course of their marriage the parties acquired Title H4328 which is registered in their joint names and on which their matrimonial home stands. He avers that the purchase of Title H4328 and its •. development to its current state was mainly carried out by him. [6] He avers that he met the respondent around 1995 when he was on holiday in Seychelles. After three years of courting, around 199811999 the respondent came to live with him in the UK. The parties lived in a one bed-room flat which the petitioner had purchased for £45,000.00, one year before the respondent came to live with him. Three years later, around 2002, the petitioner sold the flat for £75,000.00. With the profit of £30,000.000 he paid the deposit on a three bed-room house priced at £125,000.00, which he had decided to purchase with the intention of extending the parties' family. [7] In October 2003, the parties visited Seychelles and purchased the house on title H4328 for the sum SCR250,000. He borrowed SCR200,000 from his late grandmother and borrowed the balance on his u":(,,l C[\[(:: ,~Ui(. The l'l'Liliullcr ;\\lCIS [hill II _ respondent did not contribute any mon Y 1'\)1' the: rch I';e, [)ut ,IS his \\ itc, the pan ics I \ I" ; iii iIlg and working as partners. The 111('1II"_"; owcr! : -: !'('I':li<l bv .hc petitioner l'clllorIS;I':ill~~ his house in the UK, from his sul.r.v IIlliell; il\ClldSC(1 by his progression ill nmnagement and contributions 1'1.'0111 the rcsponrknt. [8] The petitioner avci s i.',11 du.u. properties or the S,) .il . Ilc, I ' '''_ ,,,I,L: '-, <", :·.:,l tll;)[ repayments , ;':!gc Ilillillhly '\ were 1'"", either for the UK : :11(11), i.: ide UK had been around £2,2S0.00 10 ,L.\.)OG,\,,) ,'II,','llilll):; to upproxinuucly SCi<. J,,-, ,00,00 whereas the respondent's avcr:,c,_: s. Jary ;' I" ,II\'~ (\~' isl,'lll ill (_\\ ['(lill Sll'l~', London, had been £1,OSO. OO amounting lU "i I ,L),"IIlilkly .')U,18,LIOO. OO. He rUI,:ICr avers that the respondent's coutriuuu..n c '" ,_·d I.' Ilc:sislillg "lil!1 the C.'\jKIlSlS ;,3suciated with the general operation UI' Li Ie ,iUU:"ll ,( , , ," III Iivi Ilg expenses 0 I'till' 1',1111iI)" I lc claims that during this period and at all times the- i'\ "i'UI)(iclll could IWI contribute 1111' h financially to the marriage as she only earned the 1'::)' of II S:lOjJ assistant and had III bear her travelling expenses to get to work and: ,I :, ;11ihe CO::I of about £300 per mo.uh. Furthermore the respondent took two , C;II'S mater if)' 1e;11 C. [9] The petitioner overs th.u aroun.: _\)ui/2COS, whi!c the parties were su ll Iiving in the UK, he financed the construction 01':1 \\';111around the property in Seychelles, which was built by his parents and which cost <II'j)iO\ im.ucly ~CR2S0,000. He also purchased solar heating equipment and instnl lations, :1: lil'il)' gutc lrom South ;\ 1'1 ica and .ur-conditioning units and furniture from the UK ofa u..al value o tupproximatcly SCRI,OO\.),OOO,OO. [10] He avers that the puuics returned to Seychelles in 2012, and 1'l'Ol11 his employment Seychelles he earned 811 ave",;I,: monthly salary varying between SCR28,000.00 in to SCR50,OOO.00 while the IC'I)()llliclll'S ;II'CI'~lge monthly snlarv varied between SCRS,500.00 to SCR7,OOO.00. Tile cost for pri vale schooling of their daughter Samantha Faure was borne by him. [11] He avers that the variance in tl.c panics' snlurics shows that throughout their relationship, the general running or the horne and the expenditure 011 tile matrimonial property was mainly subsidized by him. Further the house, land, improvements thereto and external structure was valued at SCR3, 130,000.00 in January 2017. [12] The petitioner also avers that he has been running his own business dealing in blinds, gates and garage doors among other things, for some years now. Respondent's Affidavit [13] in Reply In her affidavit the respondent avers that although title H4328 is in the joint names of the parties, she paid the majority of the price of the property from her own funds obtained from her employment in the Seychelles and in the UK. She denies that the petitioner bore the cost of the purchase and development of the property. [14] She admits that when the parties got married they lived in a one-bedroom flat and that the three bed-room house was purchased three years later but can neither deny nor confirm the price at which the flat was purchased. She also avers that it was a joint decision of the parties to sell the flat and purchase a three bed-room house and claims that the purchase of the house was financed by a mortgage obtained from Halifax Bank on the joint application of the parties. She further avers that during their period of residence in the UK, the parties were both earning over £1,500.00 per month and that they maintained ajoint bank account into which their salaries, her bonuses and supplementary incomes obtained as a result of loans she borrowed from Halifax, were paid. [15] She could neither deny or confirm that the flat was sold at £75,000.00 and that the profit of £30,000.00 was paid as deposit on the new house and put the petitioner to strict proof thereof. [16] Although she admits that the parties purchased the house in Seychelles in October 2003, she denies that it was financed by a loan from the petitioner's grandmother and by borrowing on his credit card. She further denies that she did not contribute to the said purchase and avers that she paid the seller over £23,000.00 for the purchase of the property which she withdrew from her account in the UK. She claims that any sum that the petitioner may have borrowed from his grandmother or the purpose for which he borrowed such sum cannot be confirmed or denied and she put him to the strict proof thereof. She avers that she does not know what the money was spent on but denies that it was spent for the purchase of the mauimt.nial I "y, SIll-: .uuhcr avers that he ;lCtjllilCd multiple debts in the UK throughout their 111;111' [17] She denies that tile III ,1),1,~'" I 11,1 I ! 1\ rrowed from his grandmcther was Iunck bylo " .. "C :'!111()I'lg,icC011IilciluLiscillt"cUKandfromhis salary. In fact she dcuic. th v,,~, Illl,l,g,li,;C \ViIS taken ;I[ all. She avers that the loan from his grandmother whit! refunded from monthly xum-, ( , that that she made 110 coutrihu: ,,' 'In; ,Irlly "LilliI ihc purcha " O[ the house was 1'01' rental or l hc house. She denies '1:- :IIHlcl,li1l1S Li18till addition she scut money to Seychelles ,) ,~I ,,;,()()U,UU obtained often to contribute to the rnui: I" l' c~' ol'[:ll' IH)uSC, [18] The respondent u.so d_"ic::. i around the properly ill ~;ey(" "C:'. ~:ICpurCIIdSC 0" solar equipment, ::I security gate, air conditioning the 1'1< avcning thut he die! not have the money to do so. She claims ,,11[)lII"i,:lsCS 1'01' the mntrimonial home were funded by units and lurniuu • ',"III i,'l SlI:, rhat , proceeds from the bonuses and loans t' rcntu] of she borrow u:, !;\lll:,,,', joirt loans or money obtained from her salary, [19] She admits that tile parties 1110\, til ,CYClh'!!cS ill 2012 and that the petitioner helped pay for the private schooling 1'01' till ,I' l,;lll,Slllcr, She denied [hilt his salary varied between SCR28,000,00 to SCI\SLl,OOO,c\), ",1\ l'I'S LII;ltshe was also employed when they moved to Seychelles. [20] She avers that the parties soil; III ,'i' :llil,SC in the UK for approximately £175,000.00 out of which £105,000,00 was paid to I ill' 11;1111-: 10 clear the mortgage and upproximately £50,000 was used to clear the pcti tioncr S 111isccll.incous debts Icavi ng a balance 0[' only £10,000.00. This was used to partly rune! tile I'urcklsc ola Toyota Rush Registration Number S15720 which was registered in the petitioner's 11arne. [21] She denies that throughout the relationship of the parties, the petitioner subsidized the general running of the home ~l1ldtile expenses in respect or [he house and land, She avers that the petitioner would spend nn y excess money 011 hi I1l$C Irand ot her tri vial expenses for his own benefit rather L1Hlncontributing [0 the household like she did, [22] She further stated that she furnished the matrimonial home with her own funds. She averred that her sole purpose during the marriage was to build a more comfortable house and lifestyle and she directed all her funds towards that goal, as seen from the improvements she brought to the petitioner's lifestyle. She was financially able to care for her family'S needs and to maintain them. She also paid for all the utility bills while the parties lived in the matrimonial home. Furthermore she did all the household tasks for all family members and gave the petitioner all the love, support and care of a wife during their marriage. She avers that he was greatly dependant on her in that respect. She further avers that the petitioner left the matrimonial home in August 2018 after which she continued maintaining it on her own. [23] The respondent also avers that she assisted the petitioner in starting the business S. A. F which sells customised blinds and which operated from their home during its initial stages. [24] The respondent therefore claims that she is entitled to more than half of title H4328 with the matrimonial home thereon which should therefore be registered in her sole name. She avers that she is prepared to pay the petitioner any share of the said property that the court finds he is entitled to. She further claims that she is entitled to a half share in the vehicle registration Number S 15720 and to a share in the value of S. A. F. She prays for remedies which may be summarised as follows: . (a) For the Court to declare that she is entitled to a share greater than 50% or alternatively a share of 50% of the matrimonial property and for an order that title H4328 with the matrimonial home thereon be transferred into her sole name. (b) Alternatively that the petitioner pays the respondent, her share of the matrimonial property. (c) To appoint an impartial Quantity Surveyor to value the matrimonial home and property. (d) That the shares in S. A. F. is valued and that the respondent is paid her share in the business according to her contributions. (e) That the respondent is paid halfofthe value of vehicle registration Number S15720; (f) Costs Testimony of John Maximo I~(/I/I'e [25] The petitioner JOl111[\.r!n\ il11C1:'1 ':,:1 hll,;iI1l'S~Il1~111rcsidinj; :'l Nortll '::ISI Point Mahe. He married Marie-Therese lJlI'i,;li , il,( ; <'II ~Ih April 19()0, :1'lIll~I'()\1iced a Certificate of Making Conditional Order /\:",\ It,,"': (oI,;sohin);; their 111;11T18geOil ~Ih February 2018. (Exhibit PI), [26] He testified that he me. the I\, ,,\ lilt while on holiday ill SC:,CilCI, s about twenty-four years ago although he ,.,ll, I I, , '1 "'lI' lile cx.icr l:C1t~,/1[ .hc .ill,"': he was residing in the UK and living ill .1"de b., :'ll , '" IldL \\111;(:1 IIChad purchased rUI'tile price of £45,000. He had paid for the 11M by 1111011." I' ~I 10;111borrowed from l lulilax I .nnk and mortgaging the flat as security 1'01' the In;111."i,. 1.1 .thcr l.ouisi.mnc Faure paid II,e deposit of around £4,000 for him to Obl:111l the: : i'll'" :lG did not have sufficient money to do so. The respondent did not contribute I". I',I":S t:IC deposit tor the flat [27] After the parties met they CO! 'In: 1'01'three years with the petitioner travelling to the Seychelles and the respondent t 1\ C,Jill!:! to the UK to see each other, after which the respondent moved from SCYCIH'I::Sto the UI( and they lived IO,~ethcr in the flat for one year after which they got 1l1C1ITill:, [28] After moving to the Ul., the I~ 'lil/llllClll \'ClS initially nOLpermitted 10 work for a period which he first clai mcd "1';15Uf :;;,\ 111\1111II:; IU one ycur but later st~llcd II "s lor about one and a half years. During the Iimc 01 11',1'Idll,lljlloYlll,:nlI1c bore all their expenses including the mortgage repayments. I Iter U1,11\,,1..' IC"iJ(.)IILicI1tgOl a job wOJ'kills :b d shop assistant with John Lewis for which S:IC earn,.." ,,II d\ LJ'~I;eof cIDOLll.[ 1,000 to L I ,:ZOO per month. The petitioner adm itted that si nee then. tile respondent has worked throughout the time that they have lived together. He also stated tlWLalthough she did not bring any savings with her when she came to the UK, or invest in til,' properties that he purchased or contribute to the mortgage repayments, she contributed lu the C:-:PCllSCSof running the household after she started working, [29J The petitioner testified that three years after the parties started living together, the petitioner sold the flat for £75,000 and used the profit of £ 30,000 that he had made from the sale to pay a deposit for the purchase of a three-bedroom house in the UK. The respondent did not contribute towards the deposit which was paid solely with the profit from the sale of the flat but the house was owned jointly by them because they were married. The petitioner also made all the monthly mortgage repayments. At the time he was working as a manager and his salary ranged from £ 2,200 to 3,500 per month which afforded them a life ofluxury with a new car and hoi idays. The respondent on her part contributed towards the cost of running the household including paying the bills. The petitioner stated that after deduction of her own expenses, she spent the whole of her earnings on household and family expenses. He stated that she spent money on modernising the home and that they "were never short of living a comfortable, stable life". The petitioner described the money that the respondent spent on herself as "a little, not much" and stated that she spent a little on clothes and approximately 200 to £ 300 per month for a travel pass to get to work and back. [30] When their child was born the respondent was given six months maternity leave and received only % of her salary. However after that she did not go back to work until their daughter was about 2 years old. During that time she was only paid I;3 of her salary. The petitioner claims that he had to bear the expenses of running the household during that time. [31] The petitioner testified that during the course of the marriage he acquired title V4328 in Seychelles in the joint names of the parties. He produced a deed dated 10th October 2003, for the transfer title H4328 from Walter and Rose-Mary Loveday to John Faure and Marie Therese Faure for a consideration of Rupees Two Hundred and Fifty Thousand (SCR250,000) (Exhibit P2(a)). [32] The funds to buy title H4328 were obtained first by re-mortgaging the house in the UK, secondly by a small loan, thirdly by another loan from his grandmother in Seychelles Rupees, and fourthly from a bank account that he held in Seychelles. The property was paid for partly in Seychelles Rupees and partly in foreign currency. The bulk of the funds came from the loan from his grandmother in the approximate sum of SCR150,000 to SCR200,000. The rcsp..adcm ,\) .,. ,I, when the house W:IS rC-i, II/, ,_;, ,_ " \ ,'; I he explained that prior "I i lil.,' whenever he came to ~)l) l: IeI;....-. ' ", " "~':"i\ C to IIis m: :rcr :111<1 :~i.uuhuother to sell. The funds on that account IICJC gl.. ,\ "(\111 I;,C sale 01' those bond:,;, l rc produced a bank statement for Account 1~111111, ,I),;().': in tire 11:11111201' ,101111M:\.\IIIIC luure held with Barclays Bank ill Scyc.icrles :", " li,lll.'::lLI(II~,., 1'J'()111.1<1112003 til ~\larch 2005 (Exhibit P2(b». Itshowecl interalia th.: i . 'I'il 'lilli'\' wiIIHII',III':lls: "tl SCI' 0,1 TRANSFERCHQ IFO LOVEDA Y 122,(){,(). OO", ':' PAYMENT LOVEDA Y 20.()ll.' (,CT O:l I( DO[VIINGUE .r', Ill' explained that 29,525,UO" and "8 OCT 03 the sum 01' SCRI22,000.00 was paid from his account for the pu, l; ,:: .c 01' the property. [33] The petitioner describe.' 1:1": i,UL:, ,I, .cvci.c.lcs .u the un:c L11·':Y LILclgllLit as a 'just a shell" with "absolutely liullll/".; , i ,/' Tll\') brought ill iLCIllSl'rOI11 the UI<, LOturn it into a home. They had to put ill 1\ i:l,: ,; ~'II\: otlu r Illings and LOIlSIILlC[U: ,I gm~lge and a wall around the property. I-Jc '"11"111\..\,,;, \)1' il.csc opcr.uicns while t.ic ol lur /~ was financed by the respondent. He produced ;1III .: 0/' (;UU:II,CIlLS(1'~.\hihit3(;1)) J' cUlllprisillg an invoice and packing list, bill of 1~ldillg, 1_ \.,/1 l issued by the Trades Tux division, and a bill of entry relating to the import 01':1 sol.i. J "" .: 1 i ,[0 :-cychcllcs. The invoice d.ucd 16th November 2006 is for a total SLlIll01' AUl) _~,_,_~,ul) ,Ill(: issued by L:ciWClIcis HOL \',',ILer ill Australia for the export of a solar sv stcm Lll ,'elIdes, [I,~ COI1SigllCCbeing ['vlr:o. L. Faure and the "Notify Party" being CTC: l\ I:, . ,,,;1 I aurc. The receipt 1'1'0111 Trade's Tax is dated 23rd February 2007 and is 1'01'the S"lll of IZupces One Thousand Seven Hundred and Ninety Four (RI,794.00) received from Lix.inuc laurc. The l3ill ofentry issued by the Trades Tax Import Division shows Ihilt the [.:o()ds ,11"1i ved ill Seychelles on 21 ,I February 2007 and that tax in the sum ofRl,794,OO "',IS piliel l'or them. [34] Another bundle of documents 1,:iS produced CIS Item 1 Jar tile import of a security gate from South Africa. Mr. Faure explained tha: he paid Jar the imported items by his credit card but they had to be cleared by his mother Louisiannc I-iOC:lI.'C'lLlupon arrival in Seychelles because he was in the U 1<, hence her name as the consignee on the documents. She later producecl Item] as Exhibit 7. [35] After purchasing the property in Seychelles, the parties continued living in UK but the petitioner came over every six months to see to the works on the property. His mother was paying for the costs of works on the property and he refunded her upon production of the receipts. He also brought goods over from UK which his mother sold and the proceeds of which went towards construction of the wall around the property. [36] The parties returned to live in Seychelles about eight years ago. Initially the petitioner worked with Laxmi Trading for about six months managing the shop and earning a monthly salary of R30,000.00. After that he went to work as a manager for Gondwana which is an umbrella company for other companies including Southern Seas Company Ltd. He was in charge of a landing craft for Southern Seas. He produced a bundle of payslips from Southern Seas Company Ltd showing his earnings from December 2013 to September 2016 (Exhibit 4). He stated that his earnings varied between R15,000.00 to R30,000.00 per month as in addition to his basic salary he also earned a commission. He stated that the respondent was consistently earning R6,000.00 to R7,000.00 per month after they returned to Seychelles. [37] During the time that he was working with Gondwana he was trying to start his own business and doing some marketing for that purpose. When he was made redundant 2 to 2Yz years ago he received a reasonable redundancy package ofSCRI25,000.00 which he used to start up his business under the name S. A. F. He produced a Certificate of Registration issued on 6th February 2017 certifying the registration of S. A. F. under the Registration of Business Names Act by John Maxime Faure (Exhibit P5(a». He also produced a lease agreement between himself trading as S. A. F. and one Ms Lira Jupiter T/A JUPITER HOUSE for the lease of premises which he stated was for operating his business (Exhibit P5(b». A letter dated 28th March 2017 addressed to Mr. John Faure from the Seychelles Revenue Commission ("SRC") thanking him for registering his business as "Import/Wholesaler/Retailer with the SRC and informing him of his Tax Identification Number, was produced as Exhibit P5(c). In addition to the money from the redundancy package, he also took a loan from the bank for the business using his mother's vehicle as a guarantee. I I I I I I I I I I [38] The petitioner state" Lkl' ti,L: i ' ..' ';(' j' " !';1101V any til ill:': (11)('1" ,IL:business and had nothing to do with ", t L (JilL " 1..,,'lty "I,S <llld gill ,,;c l:('()I" , I ,I their installation which one neecls to II,,\C tiic . ,d" :..110\\ :u:::;e 10 do, ,\ttllL .imc 11~ ,,,~Irtcd the business the respondent was ;llhl to dare :.li:1 i., working at Ephelia Resort. i\ lihough he did include her as a partner ill the businc.. ' me po ii-t with [he intent ion 01' hrr eventually leaving her employment to come ami \\ l r r, ' ~ II,~' :)lISi'ICSS; she never did ,Ill," \' ork 1'01'the business at all. Furthermore llie lJlI::'llh".: "I "d in 2!l17 whc» the)' were nlrcudy going through a divorce, [39] The petitioner testified ih.u h, (I'"" d QlI,lll:ily Surveyor lvlr. Nigel I\ocou to carry out a valuation of the propcrt, and (11,,\\ 1 '1 ,I v.ilu.n ion report, I-Ie explain. <i that he later asked Mr. Roucou to update the report Id il' '1llde further works on the property performed during the period between the origilwl v n.u.uion ~11l(1 [he updated one which were funded by the petitioner. [40] With regards to vel.ic.c rli,;is" .u: .. " .,' .hcr ~ 15720, he stated thai it \\ as purchased from the proceeds of sale of another 'l',,'ll~', which was owned by a UK company which belonged to him and 1\\'0 oth. ii', 'Ilers while he was living in the LII(, I-Ie sold the UK vehicle and with the proceeds , .'1\ ('\.1S / ~7:' 'J \\ hell he GIIllC [0 Sc Y( .rc lies. I-Ie therefore does not understand how tile rv. .. :~':,l (;'11 claun a share ill S 15720, lurther she does not - drive and has noth ing [0 do wi; II i.ic \ chick, [41] The petitioner admitted rhat tl)(' i"','!'olltkni is entitled to something It)!' her contributions towards their home because it \\,;1:; their horne, they built it together elllci she is the mother of their child, but stated that his contributions to their funds from the lime he sold the flat in the UK also have Lo be taken into account. [42] He also testifiecl that eliU10LIgil i., is not actually living in the ruuuimonial home his belongings are still there, the goods for his business (ire still stored there, and he is still paying for certain expenses such as landscaping and painting the house. However he explained that he prefers not to live there [0 keep the peace 1'01'his daughter'S sake. He further stated that he merely wants a dcclanuion 1'1'0111 [he court as (0 the share of the matrimonial property to wh ich he is entitled and has no wish for the respondent and his daughter to be evicted from their home. [43] In cross examination the petitioner stated that when the patties purchased parcel H4328, the house on the property was just a shell made up of bricks with a roof. A lot of work was also required to flatten the land and build a wall around it. The wall cost a lot of money as it extended around the whole property and was made of stone. The cost also included labour and transportation of materials. They had to send money over from the UK all the time to finance its construction which was mainly from his salary. In addition the money obtained from renting the house also went towards that. [44] He reiterated that the funds for the purchase of the property were obtained mainly from mortgaging the house in the UK with the balance being borrowed from his grandmother Mrs. Rose Laurence. Some money was also obtained from his bank account. The petitioner could not remember the exact amount his grandmother loaned him although he recalled that it was a lot of money, but agreed with counsel for the respondent that it would be around SCR200,000.00 as stated at paragraph 8 of his affidavit. He admitted that his grandmother was refunded by money sent from the UK by both the respondent and the petitioner. He assessed the respondent's contribution to the purchase of the property whether by directly contributing to the purchase price or refunding the petitioner's grandmother to be about Y3of the total cost of the property, because his salary has always been triple what she earned. He denied that she took a loan from Halifax on her own and stated that any loans they took were taken by them jointly. He explained that she would not have been able to obtain loans in the amount that they needed with the salary she was earning so the loans were taken by both of them jointly on the basis of their joint earnings. [45] The petitioner stated that accord ing to the deed of sale the parties paid Two Hundred and Fifty Thousand Rupees (SCR2S0,000) for the purchase of the property. However the value of the property was more than that, and they paid the remainder in Great Britain Pounds which they sent from the UK although this is not reflected in the deed of sale or any other document. He produced a receipt dated 24th September 2003 signed by and bearing the stamp of Karen Domingue. auorney-at-law (Exhibit Dl) according to which the sum of Rupees One Hundu d ,llld "1""";1 ", ! ·,UII.,:tlld (SCI, 1::.00(') '\ "'~ccived from Mr and Mrs John Fau.r ' ,; .:::\i . <)1 ~'I':' 1'<'1'[\11' :lll(: :·1:': \""" r Loveday for the purchase of parcel I,·IJ ~ :. I k \ I ,lllul tl .11:11;1~ :;,:'11 Ii;::, ,"'I'ci\,cr' i the vendors of the land and explained Lil,JII.ic SL, I r . ," I"'lvilil (~_;CI':I.?'::,()('())\\',ISeli1'1\...1\..lll lrom that stated on the transfer deed (JL·IUSt,., I :",l, ;:::(' the h,iI;IIIU': lwei been paid in cash. Although he could not state with CC'I't8il1;- II.. , 1\\'" 1':lynlcllts were made, he rcc.ills that the payment was partly in Seychelles JZult' '; 'I I I III\' iiI GrC[1t ISri1!';n rOIIIH:" l-ccause at the time there was a shortage or Iorci: I . 'hl,:_'c ill Seychelles. Hc did not recall if he paid any stamp duty orNotary's lees I'()I' I :r,lIlsl'cr olthc property, [46] He further confimcc 111", I,ll ,"" ,.' \ I I,:q .: ';, 'I w cnty f"':ine'ihoux.. '" I' ive Hundred and Twenty Five paid to 1-. L.» ",:" ",Il: l.upccs Twcll;Y Thous.u«! paid to Loveday respectively as shov.n id LIIl: towards the purchase O!'I:,C J ,CII", not reflected in tile t.tlc u\..l..u: ; u, " Great Britain Pounus Thousand stated in the title l:~ I., :11It! u u. l'2(l1)) (Ex hihi! ",II\.. II'llll " .uul rcitcr.ucd rc llccu d payments made lWC value or the premises is I ~. Il,~d 1;~;lipart 01'the PIIIChi\:,Cj 111\,.:ewas paid for in tllill till' :, I inc.u.'cd in the I'riee 01' ci\\U ilundred and Fifty c ,:~I ccd with counsel 1'01' the ..c.cndaut that all the payments that he had su.icd 11"" :'1,.,,11 II "I(k exceeded the sum 01''1'\\'0 l Iundred and Fifty Thousand. He eXpl<.1IIICl,Lllnl ,,,...;,, ""clioll d.ucd from twenty YC,II;,:::-Owhen the parties were still residing in u.c lj. I(" ,,,,,l tl.cy c.id not keep the receipts 1'01' each and every payment and that he II~kl dO(IIlI",,~:lr)' pi oof of only SOIIIC01' hi:, contributions to the transaction. The petitioner stared 111:11ill any event the respondent carne to the UK with nothing and lived with him ill his 11'111\(',lie further confirmed that none of the money that he obtained from the sale of his l l.rt in the UK went directly towards the purchase of the property in Seychelles but wen: iowardx tile purchase of the three bedroom house in the UK. [47] As for the sum of RUI)CCST\\l.. Il1:' ThlLC Thousand which the respondent claims to have paid towards the purchase or the property, he staled that although she could have contributed something it WClS more likely thut any payments were made by the both of them as she was never in a position [0 be able (0 111<1kefull payment for anything on her own as she did not come to the UI( with nil)' funds, [48] It was put to the petitioner that contrary to what he averred in his affidavit that when he returned to Seychelles in 2012 he earned a salary of Rupees Twenty Eight to Fifty Thousand, his payslips show otherwise. He stated that the figures are based on his average earnings as sometimes he would earn more and at other times less. Furthermore he earned other income from other things he was doing. [49] He stated that he never denied that that the respondent contributed to the household and admitted that the respondent was a good mother to their daughter Samantha whose education he has always and continues to fund. At the moment he pays the respondent Rupees Two Thousand Five Hundred per month for their child. [50] He also admitted that when the parties were living in the UK they were both paying for credit card debts incurred in purchasing the house and in the running of their home. [51] With regards to the Toyota Rush, he stated that he had an accident while driving it and sold it for Rupees Thirty-Five Thousand and that he is prepared to give her half of that, amounting to Rupees Seventeen Thousand Five Hundred. [52] The petitioner stated that the respondent made no contributions to his company S. A. F. The business is located at Jupiter House and is engaged in the sale and installation of blinds, garage doors and awnings which he measures and installs himself. He denies ever having - needed to work from home stating that even when he was working with Gondwana he did all work related to his business during his worlcing hours. [53] The petitioner stated that he is now living at a friend's house but still contributes to the uplceep of the home. He takes care of the landscaping and prepares fish for the dog. He chooses to stay away to avoid arguments with the respondent. Testimonyof Nigel Antoine Roucou [54] Mr. Roucou who resides at Reef Estate, Anse Aux Pins is a qualified quantity surveyor who has given evidence before the Courts of Seychelles in that capacity. He confirmed that he drew up a valuation report dated 9th March 2020 for Mr. John Faure of North East Point after visiting property 1-14328all 6th February 2020. He was assisted by Mr. Faure at the site visit and they went round the property including the house and he took measurements and photographs, He ,,[1,-L'I'\lC(11,:lI it \' '~ il (Icccni house in il nice \" .uion. He stated that according to the rep. 11'1, the pi (JI)vII.' II,: _IlK was val ucd <IS <ItIvlarcil 21120 at Rupees Three Million Two Hundrl'L: ilil,: .,." l ;: ,\' " j' c T:1()11~,lIld(SCRJ,2:? .. (00). I lc produced the report as Exhibit P6, [55] In cross exarninauo.. i ;1'. 1\01.(UI, "". :ILd 1;I,ll the rcspontknt \. ,~s 11IIl present at the site visit. He did not enquire about Ill(' ()\\ ncrship 01' the property ,IS he was satisfied that Mr. Faure was the owner liln>'or hy I: C '.' ,,> ::C' conducted himself ut thc s.re visit: he gave the surveyor access to the pl,'pel \. illl\, > I' 1)()II~C, guided him (!tIring 11)(,; visit and explained what he needed to k,IUIV. 1:01' tl..u r,',1SO;1nlso he made no CIICJllirics about the respondent. [56] Mr. Roucou explained L1,ed iIrel cr.cc ill the report ,II page .:1 between ( I) the current market value of the properly (SCR3,225,OOO) 01': upc.x', I':" and C2) Li,c, , c ,,:iiii"ll Two Hundred ,... lulL cost or the buildings and T\\'"lty Five Thousand lor [IIC main house being One Million and [i!:,ilty Eignt Tl.ous.ind and lour l-lulH.lrcd (SCR1,088,400) and the carport of Rupees Three Hundred and Til irty Three Thousand One hundred and Fifty (SCR333,150). J~le stared Lhill 11.-rc kill been an indication th.u the house could mortgaged as security rUI a I "Ii. " d ill such cases it is usual lor insurance purposes be to state such replacement cost hence LIICreason it appears in the report [57] He stated that in order to come to the CUITcnt market value of the property, he had compared it to other properties ill the neighbourhood. However this is not normally included in the report: the report would llor"I;tll:: :,L;I[Cthnt the comparable method was used but the properties used to carry out such comparisons me not speci lied. [58] He clarified that the buildings on [IIC property comprise the main house and garage at the back of the house, He stated that the external structures would include the road, retaining wall, a laundry shed and other stores and lillie sheds, A breakdown of the value of each item is not usually provided, Loose furniture and fittings and tile quantity surveyor's fees are not included in the valuation either. [59] Mr. Roucou stated that although he did enquire as to how aiel the house is and it is contained in his notes he does not recall it now, Testimony of Louisianne Hoareau [60] Mrs. Hoareau, mother of the petitioner is a resident of Bel Air, Mahe. She testified that previously she had been living in England since 1965, but she would travel to Seychelles every year or so. Her son was born in England but the respondent only came to live in England after they mel. She has known the respondent for approximately ten years. [61] Mrs. Hoareau testified that prior to meeting the respondent, the petitioner lived in a flat in Walthamstow. She stated that she took a loan to obtain money for a deposit for him to be able to purchase the flat. The petitioner subsequently mortgaged the flat. At the time the respondent was still living in Seychelles and working as a cabin crew. The petitioner paid all expenses for the purchase of the flat. [62] After the parties moved out of the flat they moved into a house. She does not know how the new house was paid for. Mrs Hoareau further stated that she would not have known of the extent of the respondent's contribution towards the purchase of any assets by the parties while they were in the UK as these concerned them as husband and wife and she did not interfere in such matters. [63] Mrs Hoareau stated that the petitioner has always worked but that she does not know how much he earned. When the respondent came to UK she did not work in the beginning. [64] The first vehicle that the petitioner purchased was a OT and Mrs. Hoareau was a guarantor • for that transaction. [65] When Mrs. Hoareau came back to Seychelles she assisted the petitioner in identifying a property for the parties to purchase namely title H4328 and the house thereon at North East Point. The parties then came to Seychelles to proceed with the purchase of the property which was funded partly with money borrowed from her parents which was subsequently repaid although she does no! know if the whole sum was repaid in full. [66] She and her husband assisted in developing the property while the parties were still in the UK. She explained that when the property was purchased the house was only partly built and they helped to complete the construction thereof. This involved rock breaking and a lot of other hard work She further stated that she also had to be present when the workers including electricians \\'CI"~' \\'(1: ki.. I I:" !1<1l1Se, Most ofher time \' "S spent at the house including Saturdays and ~~1111(I;,ys, ~)Ij":did 110t ge[ paid 1'01'the work she did. [67] The petitioner sorncum. S -c.u iter: , ,,111('1' name 1'01' 1:le \\OII'S ():I 1,Ie property such as gates and materials from .\I)"I~",I,~'" pI()(ill( 1.,.,1IIel11 j as (L:,hihil :' I) namely a bundle of documents for tile import 111';1 .cc. ,. _,':_;;i(C IIllIl1 :)oulh ;\ 1'1ica. The .iundlc comprised an invoice in the SUIl1 of2:./,I{ I I,', )2, _I lI;ll, ! 1::;111 January 2eos issucu t,>, Expanda Security (Pty) Ltd, both the buyer .uul tuc "1\ ,":' I ;', I,"" being stated therein ,:,i Leillg Mrs. L. Faure. A packing list was also i""LlCd by" . CUllIP;II1Yand stated 10 be CUII:-'I~lledto John Faure. The bundle comprised ;1 ~,ill (Ii 1,1" , .'. ,I ccrti llcatc of origin, II bili 0' entry and a receipt dated 13th January issu ,(I 1\' : II\..' Trades '1';1;\ division 1'01' llll' sum of R3,565.00 received from Marie-Anne I., ur. "Ill' lnurc. She also identified Exhibit P3 as the documents for the solar p.incl whi..» sill' si.ucd W,IS installed by her lIll,1 her husband. She stated that she does nol know \1 lw p,:ill lor those materials, She only received them. [68] After the parties returned to sculc ill Seychelles the petitioner first worked as a manager at Laxmi Trading, She hac! hcard t.i.« i:IC respondent lwei ajob but has no personal knowledge of it. [69] In cross-examination Mrs l lo.u c au i.onfirmcd thut when the respondent first arrived in the • UK she was not employeei but CII\I:d 110t state the exact period for which she was unable to work. She stated that the respondent worked in John Lewis 1'01' a while but did not know when she started working there or how much she was earning. Shc Slated that at the time she was on good terms with both parties although they had their ups and downs. [70] She confirmed that she \\LIS li, ill~ :,1 :':;C)'l:IClks in 200::; when tile house in Seychelles was purchased. The parties carne [V 0,-)'(1 1<'::IIcs and stayed a while before returning to the UK. She and her husband renovated the house with the help of labour. The parties returned to settle in Seychelles after eight to nine years when construction of the house had been completed. The tenants who had been rent ing the house had broken certain things so that a lot of work had to be done again Oil tile house. [71] As for the money borrowed by the petitioner from Mrs. Hoareau's mother she stated that she was not sure of the exact amount that was borrowed and whether it was returned in full or only partly. She is also unaware of a loan of £23,000 borrowed by the parties from Halifax to refund the petitioner's grandmother for the loan. [72] Sh~ further stated that she does not recall if the petitioner sent any furniture from the UK nor does she recall clearing such furniture. [73] Although she does not remember which year the petitioner worked at Laxmi Trading she knows it was after the parties returned to Seychelles. She confirmed that he now runs his own business. [74] In re-examination Mrs Hoareau stated that in order to obtain a loan to purchase a house one has to have a deposit of at least 10% of the amount of the loan. In addition the borrower and his or her partner has to disclose their payslips and as well as their employer to the bank. At the time the parties were taking loans the petitioner was working at "Allied" as a manager and the respondent as a shop assistant at John Lewis. Testimony of Marie-Therese Sil1(J/1 [75] Ms Sinon is fifty years 0 ,.'age and resides at NOl1hEast Point. She confirmed that she and the petitioner are now divorced. She stated that when the parties met the respondent was working as a cabin crew and living in Seychelles. She then moved to the UK to live with him and they got married after that. Three months after arriving in England she started working at John Lewis [76] She testified that parcel number 1-14328and the house thereon is owned by both of them jointly. The property was purchased while they were living in the UK. The vendor wanted to be paid in foreign exchange so they borrowed £23,000 from Halifax Bank for that purpose. However they needed another Rupees One Hundred and Ninety Thousand which the petitioner borrowed from his grandmother and which they refunded from money borrowed from the bank. [77] After that the petitioner's mother helped with construction of the house and money was transferred from the UK Corthat purpose. The respondent stated that she also contributed towards construction ofthe IIOll:,C:: ;1111111..'1'salary and 8 bonus that she received. According to her the salary that lill' l"I'Liti()I, '"d~ receiving .u thc time I\':IS IlU: .iufficicnt for him to obtain a loan which )l'qllil,_',1 ('ICII' llllllblllC(1 salaries. At the time she 11,15still working at John Lewis in the UK a I1d the 1>'"'[ i, ioucr \\',IS ern p 10ycd 8S [I m anagc I'wi III a nether company in the UK. [78] As to whether the pet ili()ll.:r's ..1-'1' .md hCI' husband were paid Ill' their work on the house, she replied that this \\,1) Illl,,\.:Cll them and the petitioner and she did not like to interfere in such arrangements IJ..:I\\ CCIImother c1l1<1 SOil. [79] The respondent has one child \\ iill !lll' petitioner. She is called Samantha and was born on 25th February 2003 while the I" ics were still living in England, WIH,::1lthey returned to Seychelles she was nine years ul.]. [80] The parties returned io SLy t.:1""V; .1 June 20 12. Since the house had been rented out when they were in the UK SUllie \\ ork kid to be done Oil it. Upon thei I' return the respondent worked first for Kreol 01' ,llh: . Ill" ,Ie1«([111\.,);1. The petitioner worked I',)l' Laxrni Trading. At the same time the pet i:iUII,"I' >,,1. ,..:,: his U'.\ II busi ness wh icl: he operated from home. The housework was mostly done 0) l:. C I':: I'\)lldellt 8S the petitioner always claimed that he was too busy. Even if the petitioner cl.iims that he earned 8 bigger salarv, the parties pooled their earnings to buy necessities I~'I' the household, While her s81,lI'Y wns mostly spent on household expenses, the peri til);le) .pcnt most 0 Chis money gamb IiII):;. Their child attended private school and the petitioner puid hCI' school fees. [81] The loans taken by the parties were repaid while they were still in tile UK. The proceeds of the sale of their house in the UI, were used to purchase the property in Seychelles. The remainder was used to fix up ihc house, to buy the Toyota Rush which cost Rupees Two hundred and Twenty Five Thousand and the petitioner also gambled some of it away. [82] The respondent confirmed thut s,/\.r. is the petitioner's business. She stated that the petitioner used to import garage (1001'S 811dnot blinds and claims that it was she who gave him the idea for importing blinds when looking for a supplier on the internet because water poured inside their house whenever it rained. When she informed the petitioner of a wholesaler who dealt in blinds he said he would contact the manufacturer directly and it was only afterwards that she realised that his company had started dealing in blinds without him even telling her. She was not made part of the company in which the petitioner preferred to include his friends. [83] As for the Quantity Surveyor's Report, the respondent was not aware that a valuation was being done in February 2020. She was never notified by Mr. Roucou that he would be coming to the property for that purpose and she only became aware of it when she came to court. With regards to the valuation of the property as per the report she stated that the market value has fluctuated and changed. [84] In regards to her averment at paragraph 10 of her affidavit that the petitioner had acquired multiple debts in the t,' J( throughout the marriage of the parties and that she did not know what he spent money on, she stated that the petitioner did a lot of things in hiding that she did not know about. One example is his gambling habit that another person informed her of. She further stated that while some of the money borrowed from his grandmother did go towards the purchase ot' the matrimonial property she does not know where the rest went. [85] As for the petitioner's claim that he spent Rupees One Million on large purchases for the house in Seychelles includ ing the security gate the respondent insists that he could not have spent that much given the size of the house which is only a two bedroom house. The . respondent further claims that they both contributed to such purchases. Both of them were working and even if she diclnot earn a lot she was also contributing to their expenses. They had a mortgage from I-Iali fax for which they were making monthly repayments of £1000. They also needed to purchase groceries, pay their child's school fees and meet other household expenses. A lthough the petitioner used his credit card to pay for certain items and expenses even that had to be repaid. [86] The respondent claims that when she was in UK she contributed to the maintenance of the house in Seychelles. She recalls sending the whole of her bonus payment of £3,000 through one Jeanine Marday who was travelling from Canada to Seychelles to the petitioner's mother for that purpose. !\( the time the garage was being constructed and they needed the money to buy cement. [87] The respondent stated th..: in ;1 "',, 1,1(1 Inure ihnn hnl 1'0 llhc 1<11)(1 COl,'Ill i'J~d in title H4328 she believes that she i,) ~lllitil\, ,I, ,I,,,i' ui' :111.' \',lIIIC olthc Ill)USC[IS :,:".: ";su has a child and they cannot live on the street. lui.hcrmorc the child has always lived with her. She stated however that at the moment she t" S not have money to pay the petitioner his share of the property and that even il' she I" _',ILII 11111C she cines not think she \\111 he able to do so. Alternatively she prays t:l;11II,.: ih_llliollcr pays her the Sh,II'C ofthe matrimonial property to which she is entitled, [88] As for the Toyota Rush of which : IIC i~'cluiming halfthe value, Sill.' stated that when the parties separated it was bcil1~~l:1 ivcn hv the petitioner and that he subsequently sold it without informing her, She Oldy !,U':. I111C aware that the jeep had been sold when she saw someone else drivi ng it. [89] She is also claiming a sh.uc lil' ,J.. ,.i-, v.uich S;,C S:I)'S stands for Sanumtha Ashley Faure. She bases her claim on the time ih.u she has been married to the petitioner, and states that she deserves a part of the con.p.iny after nil the struggles that they have been through together. She states that other i ;_(I c \\ ho (:0 not know about the su llcriug and difficulties they have endured now want 10 l)l'nciit lrom the company. [90] In cross-examination tile respv,'l:\. IIL admincd that while the parties were living in the UK she worked as a shop assistant .md I:,C petitioner as a manager and that he earned more than she did. She admitted that he also earned more than her when thcy returned to Seychelles. However she justified her clai III for a bigger share of the matrimon ia I property by the fact that she has a child and they need somewhere to live, [91] She also admitted that the pctirioncr had contributed a lot more than :,11<": had to their assets but stated that when i.vo people 6~l 111"1lricd they pool their resources together and they should not look at who is earning or contributing more because they are both contributing. It was put to her that her averment at paragraph 4 of her affidavit that she had paid for the majority ofland title 1:':14328from her 0\\,11 funds obtained from her employment in UK and Seychelles, was therefore incorrect, to which she replied that she had paid a part. [92] It was also pu t to her that her averment at paragraph 10 of her affidavit that she had withdrawn the sum 01' £23,000 from her account for the purchase of the property was incorrect given that the parties had a joint account. She stated that they were married and had to have ajoint account. [93] It was further pointed out to her that according to paragraph 15 of her affidavit the parties only had £10,000 left over from the proceeds of sale of the house in UK which was used to partly fund the purchase of a Toyota Rush, but that in her testimony she had stated that the proceeds of sale 0(' the house was used to cover the large expenses for the house. She replied that the Toyota Rush cost Rupees Two Hundred and Twenty Five Thousand. [94] As to the respondent's contributions to S. A. F., she stated that she was the one who had looked up the blinds (Rolex brand) on the internet and showed it to him. She admitted that the petitioner set up and runs the business himself and carries out its day to day operations but stated that when he was just starting out, he operated the business from home. Further the respondent and their child were always by his side when he had to go and set up everything for road shows. She further denied sending any letters to the effect that she did not have any interest in the company. [95] The respondent further admitted that her name does not appear on any ofS. A. F. 's company document and explained that the petitioner did all the arrangements himself in hiding. It - was put to her that there is no proof that she had anything to do with the company. She explained that there is nothing on record to show the same because the petitioner did not want her to have anything to do with the company but that she believes that she is entitled to share therein after having lived with the petitioner for eighteen years. It was further put to her that she had made zero contribution to S. A. F. which she denied reiterating that it was she and thci r ch ilei who hel ped him when he had to go on road shows. Furthermore they lived together and while he was running the business, in addition to her own job, she did all the domestic and household work including the cooking and the laundry. [96] The respondent maintained that Rupees One Million for the expenses the petitioner claims to have made on the properly in Seychelles is too much for that time, even if that were to include the cost of the solar 1;\,;lli'I~, S\SICIll, security gate, air-conditioning unit and the wall. [97] She admitted that tha t L I,U'I I .no. I,i II)' lo.m repayments when (hey were in the UK were paid from the petitioncrs ,1(,-,)lllll, /\s lor proof that she SCIl( her bonus of £3,000 to Seychelles she stated that she , '(.,\1 Ill'illS till': witness to testily in Court, H was put to her that Mrs. Louisianuc J 1\),II'Cill 1,1\ C,I' mentioned receiving the money which was a substantial sum. She IIWiIILdi'I'-" 111"il it \\ .::-;her bon LIS 1'01'working 101' IIltecn years at John Lewis. She further cluimcd tb.u ull her paperwork including those relating to her earnings and bonuses were hidden by 1:1' ii, riiioncr and she coulc! not have access to them. It was further put to her that £3,000 \\;1'; 1;]1too much to buy cement 1'01'a garage. She replied that the money was not used solely 1\11' i I ,e gdr:lge but also for works which was simultaneously being done on the house, [98] Counsel drew her attention tu .n , ~':'ICClllCI1l1haLthe petitioner was responsible for payment to his mother for the works Oil (he house because she did not want to interfere in family matters between them. She admitted that he handled all the money which is to be expected as they were married. Both of them put their earnings together and a lter deduction of their expenses they sent whatever (IllY could 10 Seychelles. [99] The respondent further admiuc., lil"L 111C petitioner is paying her a monthly sum of Rupees Two Thousand Five Hundred LOI'their seventeen year old daughter's upkeep and also provides her with pocket moncv tl) go 10 school. He no longer has (0 pay her school fees as she attends the School or!\ Lc . cis at Anse Royale. She also adm iucd that the petitioner cuts the grass around the house hut there is still a lot of maintenance work andjobs around the house which is not being done, [100] As to what exactly she is claiming the respondent stated that she wants her share and her daughter'S share in the matrimonial property. According to her she deserves half of the house and her daughter a percentage of the house. [101] In re-examination the respondent stated that the parties' daughter has no share in S. A. F. The respondent also stated that she is currently living in the matrimonial home. As for the 24