Africa-Press – Tanzania. HOUSEWIFE Getrude Mushi has taken to court her husband, Dr Aviti Mushi, who is a Senior Lecturer at the University of Dar es Salaam, demanding orders of maintenance for their two children.
Getrude, the applicant, is requesting the Dar es Salaam based Kisutu Court to order Dr Mushi, the respondent, to make contributions towards maintenance of the children a total sum of 700,000/- each month and settle school fees for the two matrimonial issues.
“I pray the order for maintenance from the respondent’s salary to be deducted or remitted automatically for maintenance since (he) is unwillingly to comply with the orders sought prior,” reads part of the application.
Dr Mushi is alleged to have abandoned his family, including failure to settle up keeping and education costs for the two issues. The Lecturer, through his Advocates, Frank Michael and Joseph Mafie, has denied in his reply to the application the claims and demands strict proof of the allegations.
In the application for maintenance filed by Advocate Emmanuel Ushaku, the wife states that the respondent is liable to maintain the children for reasons that he is the biological father and well economically to maintain them.
The applicant states that she is married to the respondent and in their matrimonial house they managed to have two issues. She claims that her husband has not supported the children since 2020 and has made no contributions towards the maintenance in question.
According to the applicant, on May 17 and 19, 2020 simultaneously, she reported the matter to the social welfare office under the Local Government Authorities within Kinondoni District and on December 11, 2020 the respondent agreed to pay for maintenance of the children.
She stated in the application that the respondent agreed to pay for school fees of the two children and provide 700,000/- monthly for their maintenance in question starting the same date, that is, December 11, 2020 as stated in the settlement agreement.
However, the applicant alleged, the respondent failed to honour the agreement, a situation that forced the social welfare office to issue a summons for compliance on which he could not comply with. The applicant had no other means than approaching the court for the best interests of the children.
