MAINTENANCE CLAIM

Otago Daily Times, Issue 22719, 4 November 1935, Page 17

MAINTENANCE CLAIM

ORDER MADE BY COURT A decision that maintenance of 18s per week should be paid was made by Mr Justice Kennedy in the Supreme Court on Saturday In giving judgment in the case of Ernest Lionel Coxhcad (petitioner) v. Dorothy Beatrice Coxhead (respondent). His Honor’s judgment was ns follows: This is an application by the respondent for an order for maintenance. I need not recite the facts more than to say that I am unable to conclude that it has been proved that the petitioners earnings include an additional £1 per week cash takings not recorded. The respondent has the custody of the child of the marriage and she cannot carry, nor should she be expected to carry, the sole responsibility for the child’s maintenance. While this is the position, the court in making an order is limited by the amount available or reasonably available. The respondent at present has employment providing board for herself and the child, but the amount of wages is not really adequate for her maintenance and the child’s. Further provision should be made for her and her child. I say this because circum-. stances may change so that an application for an increase would be warranted. The form of order made has reference to existing conditions and recognises that the respoudent is keeping the child. An order is made that the petitioner pay to the wife as from September 6, 1935, during’the joint lives of the petitioner and the respondent or until- the court otherwise orders, the sum of 18s per week for the maintenance and support of the respondent. The petitioner will pay the respondent for costs the sum of £4 4s and disbursements. At the hearing of the case on Friday Mr J. B. Thompson appeared for the petitioner and Mr A. N. Haggitt for the ' respondent.