JOCELYN AMIRIAN vs ROBERT AMIRIAN [2004] KEHC 1717 (KLR)

REPUBLIC OF KENYA

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI

DIVORCE CAUSE NO.125 OF 2000

JOCELYN AMIRIAN…………………………………………………….PETITIONER

Versus

ROBERT AMIRIAN…………………………………………………..RESPONDENT

JUDGMENT

The petitioner in this divorce cause has petitioned for the dissolution of the marriage solemnized on 31st August 1985, between her and the respondent at St. Boniface Church, Tooting London, within the United Kingdom, pursuant to the marriage Act of England 1949.

After the said marriage the parties cohabited at various places in the United Kingdom, and later settled in Kenya in July 1993, the parties cohabited in Nairobi, Runda Estate and they have two issues namely:

a) Darrin Amirian born on 10th May 1988

b) Nicolas Amirian born on 31st August 1990

The petitioner is a British citizen and the respondent is an Australian citizen both are domiciled in Kenya since 1993.

The petitioner gave evidence in support of the grounds of cruelty and gave a detailed account of incidence of cruelty, neglect and mental torture that she has undergone in the hands of the respondent.

Problems started when the respondent resigned from his United Nations employment to go into business. He refused to discuss anything with the petitioner and neglected to provide any financial support to the petitioner and the children. The children were discontinued from school due to unpaid school fees. The respondent also kept on taunting the petitioner to borrow money from friends and relatives to meet the financial needs of the family. Eventually the business closed down and the respondent was not working at all. This state of affairs caused a lot of strain on the petitioner, whose health started degenerating and their legal status as residents of Kenya also lapsed. Eventually the petitioner was able to travel to the United Kingdom to visit her sick father but when she came back the respondent barred her from entering their matrimonial house, she was only able to take away the children whom she has been providing for single handedly. According to the petitioner the marriage is irretrievably broken down with no likelihood of reconciliation.

I have given due consideration to the pleadings filed herein, as well as the testimony of the petitioner. The respondent although he did not appear during the hearing has filed an answer and crosspetition also seeking for divorce. Whichever way one looks at this marriage, there is no chance of reconciliation. Accordingly I am satisfied that the petitioner has been able to prove her case and that this petition has not been presented through collusion. In this regard the marriage solemnized between the petitioner and respondent on 31st August 1985 is hereby pronounced as dissolved.

The decree nisi shall issue after a period of 3 months. The parties herein shall have the joint custody of the children but the petitioner shall have the care and control of the minor children.

Any party is at liberty to apply. Each part to bear their own costs of this petition.

It is so ordered.

Judgment read and signed on 23rd April 2004

MARTHA KOOME

JUDGE