Martin v Martin [2021] SBHC 8; HCSI-CC 285 of 2015 (26 January 2021)

HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS

Case name:	Martin v Martin
Citation:
Date of decision:	26 January 2021
Parties:	Jennifer Martin v Simon Martin
Date of hearing:	18 November 2020
Court file number(s):	285 of 2015
Jurisdiction:	Civil
Place of delivery:
Judge(s):	Faukona J
On appeal from:
Order:	1. Grant maintenance order to child Miana Martin in the sum of $500.00 fortnightly until she attains 18 years old or has completed education. 2. The Petitioner and the children to reside within the property of the 3. Respondent at Lunga until change of circumstances. 4. Respondent to continue provide for Miana’s School fees. 5. Protection order granted on 22nd January 2018 to continue in force. 6. Costs of these proceedings are to be paid by the Respondent to the Petitioner.
Representation:	Ms K Kohata for the Petitioner No one for the Respondent (Mr. R Tovosia absent)
Catchwords:
Words and phrases:
Legislation cited:	Islanders Divorce Act section 21
Cases cited:

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS
CIVIL JURISDICTION

Civil Case No. 285 of 2015

BETWEEN

JENNIFER MARTIN
Petitioner

AND:

SIMON MARTIN
Respondent

Date of Hearing: 18 November 2020
Date of Decision: 26 January 2021

Ms K Kohata for the Petitioner
No one for the Respondent (Mr. R Tovosia absent)

DECISION ON APPLICATION FOR MAINTENANCE AND ACCOMMODATION OF CHILDREN OF THE MARRIAGE

Faukona PJ: This is an application for maintenance for one child out of three of the marriage who is still a juvenile. The application also covers accommodation for all the children and their mother, the Petitioner, until such time circumstances change.

2. The substance of this case is a petition for divorce, of which a decree nisi was granted on 31^st March 2017 followed by decree absolute.
3. The issue left after dissolution of marriage is for maintenance and accommodation for the children of the marriage.
4. The Defendant has not filed any defense and sworn statement in response to the application. Opportunities were given but his Counsel Mr. Tovosia had not assisted him and did nothing except filing of a notice to contest. From then on, Mr. Tovosia had failed to attend mention dates, application and never filed any defense or sworn statement.
5. The Petitioner’s claim for maintenance is particularly for Miss Miana who is age 17^th years and the last of the three issues of the marriage. Besides that, the Respondent to continue providing school fees until she completed her education. The maintenance should be in terms of $500.00 fortnightly in cash or food. The child since separation and consequent divorce had been living with the Petitioner.
6. By virtue of S. 21 of the Islanders Divorce Act this Court has the power to order maintenance and education of the children including maintenance for the wife.
7. In this particular case the Petitioners does not wish to apply for any maintenance for herself, but for the child Miana alone. The legal principle commonly acknowledges is the Respondent has the legal obligation to provide financial support and accommodation for his children.
8. There is evidence that the Petitioner is employed by the World Bank but what she earns does not match to the earnings by the Respondent obtained from rents of his property at Lunga land.
9. The evidence of the Respondent’s income earnings from financial resources are sufficient to support her daughter providing for maintenance and payment for her education. I must therefore order maintenance for Miana by the Respondent in terms of $500.00 cash fortnightly until she attained 18 years of age or until she completed her education.
10. In terms of providing security and accommodation for the children of the marriage the Respondent has an obligation as well. The Petitioner is quite adamant that the Respondent would provide accommodation at his Lunga property until such time circumstances change.
11. However, with the current attitude of the Respondent as reflected by evidence chasing the Petitioner out and even his own daughter. It is considered that the arrangement both parties had agreed on that the Petitioner and the children to be accommodated within the Respondent’s property until such time must be given legal status and recognized as a temporary arrangement which must not be breached.
12. The other reason as reveal by evidence is that the Respondent had sold what used to be a family home in Honiara. With the proceeds he bought the land at Lunga. Notably the Petitioner do not or partly own the property neither claim it as well.
13. With that sad reflection, it connotes the Respondent has no love and affection for his own blood children. If there is any ever exist, that has been abandoned in the previous life, and has now being substituted with a different ego and selfishness. But one cannot escape their duty he promised to provide for his children. That has to be accepted vigilantly, if not, then the call for the court to make an order to revive recognizance of obligation is pertinent.
14. Another reason why accommodation is in dire need for the Petitioner and two children is because one of the two children Mr Ralph Martin who has been taken care of by the Petitioner, was diagnosed with a psychological condition called Schizophrenia since May 2014. Treatments were instituted along with schedules for his clinical follow ups. Currently he is receiving monthly moderate injections and oral benzhexol at 5 milligrams daily. See Dr’s resort dated 28^th May 2015, exh JM (1).
15. The son though adult now needs continued medical attention and support for his conditions. The Respondent must support by providing accommodation. He needs stable accommodation to manage his mental health condition. It is best Ralph should remain under the care of the Petitioner whilst the Respondent provides accommodation.
16. With his medical condition Ralph sometimes has down aggressive mood. This is caused by the Respondent’s actions and behavior. At times he got confused at his father, sometimes mood changes and he would fight him.
17. This child needs a stable family and background care. Not only that but a stable accommodation with a duty of responsibility and obligation. This needs a change in mind set and behavior.
18. Obviously the veracity of evidence has warranted that the Petitioner and the two children be accommodated at the Respondents property at Henderson without threat and disturbance.
19. This leads as to the next point which culminates the behavior of the Respondent. There is evidence that conflict between the parties continues due to many reasons. The Petitioner has pointed out in evidence that the Respondent controls the freedom of movement by the Petitioner and the children. At times when he had issue with his new family he could go to the Petitioner and the children and lives as his getaway for few nights. The latest occurrence was in September 2020 when he returned and resided in the same building without explanation.
20. This shows continuing conflict between the parties are eminent with threats and harassment, controlling behavior, invasion of privacy and liberty. As a result of such behavior the Petitioner had applied for interim protection orders which were granted on 22^nd January 2018.
21. With recent occurrences and incidents it is prudent that those orders be continued to be in force. The Counsel for the Petition has indicated she will apply for a permanent order in due course which I conceded to.
22. With the determinations attributed above supported by evidence I must grant the orders prayed for by the Petitioner with costs.

Orders:

1. Grant maintenance order to child Miana Martin in the sum of $500.00 fortnightly until she attains 18 years old or has completed education.
2. The Petitioner and the children to reside within the property of the
3. Respondent at Lunga until change of circumstances.
4. Respondent to continue provide for Miana’s School fees.
5. Protection order granted on 22^nd January 2018 to continue in force.
6. Costs of these proceedings are to be paid by the Respondent to the Petitioner.

The Court.