Court directs respondent to pay 60% cost of maintaining his three children

Mrs Olachi Okafor had on Octomber 5, 2017, filed a cross petition against her husband Abedego Okafor. She sought for an interim order of the court to compel her husband to pay N100,000 monthly for the maintenance of their three children, pending the determination of the petition. In his ruling, Justice Jude Okeke held that the cardinal question was whether the applicant had made out a case to justify the grounds of the application. He held that from the records of the court, the applicant left the matrimonial home on March 27, 2016 and the children had been with her since May 19, 2016. Okeke noted that the applicant claimed that since then the respondent had refused to contribute to the upkeep of the children. He noted that the respondent in his counter affidavits claimed that the applicant took away the children from the matrimonial home on her own volition and denied him access to them. He added that the applicant also changed the children’s school and no address to locate them. The judge held that under sections 1 of the Child Rights Act of 2003 and 71 of the Matrimonial Causes Act 2004, the court had been given wide impression with regard to the custody of children in a marriage. “The cardinal requirement is that the court must bring the best interest of the children to its paramount consideration in any order it makes. “In Section 73 (1) and (2) of the Matrimonial Causes Act, the court has discretion pending the determination of the petition to make an order for the maintenance of children of a marriage. “The court will have regards to the earning capacity, conduct of the parties and other relevant circumstance.” He added that Section 71 (1) of the Act provided that the court has power to make an order for payment of lump sum weekly, monthly or yearly for the maintenance of the children of the marriage. “In this case, this discretion shall be applied judicially and judiciously, putting into consideration the earning capacity of the parties and other relevant circumstance as well as in the best interest of the children of the marriage. “The court has a duty to make such order that will be in the best interest of the children of the marriage, irrespective of what either of the party requires to provide for the children.” He noted that “it is against this backdrop that the court in exercise of its discretion to granting this application, taking into cognisance of earning and income of the parties.” The judge further held that the court reckoned with its records which showed that the applicant was working with ECOWAS, while the respondent was a level 15 officer with Ministry of Foreign Affairs. “The parties are persons of means, either of whom can provide for the maintenance of the children. “Against this backdrop, the court in its discretion under Section 1 of the Child Rights Act directs that the N100,000 needed for the maintenance of the three children be funded in proportion of 60 per cent by the respondent and 40 per cent by the applicant, pending the determination of the petition. “In respect to the school fees paid by the applicant for the 2026/17 academic year, the parties shall also share in the same proportion. “In other words, the respondent shall refund the applicant only 60 per cent of the sum.” Okeke then adjourned further hearing in the case until February 5. NAN]]>