The High Court upheld a divorce between P. K. and J. K. and set maintenance for the wife at €50 a week, beginning only when the husband is certified fit to return to work. The court adjourned the matter to the last day of term and directed that an up-to-date medical report be provided by then. The judgment does not state the date of the adjourned hearing or record a later decision.
The appeal followed a Circuit Court divorce decree and ancillary orders made in March 2010. Divorce was not opposed. The High Court said maintenance was the sole issue it had to determine, based on the parties’ means and assets. It did not revisit earlier matters resolved by a 2008 consent order, saying it was not open to revise that order.
The husband, a taxi driver who was not working at the time, had undergone surgery shortly before the hearing. His reported taxi turnover fell from €39,100 for 2007 to €27,000 for 2009. The court accepted tax computations showing taxable income of €5,647 for 2009, less preliminary tax of €379. It found no evidence sufficient to undermine the accounts or establish that he retained an interest in a milk distributorship operated by his son.
The judgment records that the wife did not give evidence. Her son and daughter testified, but the judge said much of their account of the marriage was hearsay and treated the evidence with caution. The husband’s testimony that the wife earned income from domestic work was not denied by her under oath. The court also noted her reported deserted wife’s benefit and the husband’s evidence about his health and finances.
In setting the amount, the judge considered the parties’ financial resources, needs, living arrangements and contributions to the family, among other statutory factors. He recognised the wife’s role in raising the children and the husband’s conduct during the marriage, while also weighing his current disability and income. The youngest child was now an adult and no longer dependent, so the court said no further maintenance was due for that child.
The €50 weekly order was conditional on medical certification of the husband’s fitness to work. The court adjourned pending a full, current medical report indicating when he could resume work. The judgment does not specify a calendar date for commencement of payments.