IN THE FAMILY DIVISION OF THE MAGISTRATE’S COURT AT SUVA

FILE No: 15/SUV/0563

BETWEEN:

SA
Applicant

AND:

AS
Respondent

____________________________________________________________________________
APPEARANCES/REPRESENTATIONS

Mr. Sharma P. of Victoria Chembers for the Applicant
Mr.   Tuitoga  T. of  Haniff Tuitoga Solicitors for the Respondent
___________________________________________________________________________

RULING ON SPOUSAL MAINTENANCE

APPLICATIONS
1.	The applicant lady filed a Form 5 Application on the 23rd November 2015, seeking orders, to which I quote in verbatim as follows:-

(a).	“Pay spousal maintenance in sum of $600.00 weekly;

(b).	Pay child maintenance for SS born on the 1st of August 2013 in the sum of $400.00 weekly;

(c).	Cater for any medical expenses for the child including school fees currently at LO Learning Centre and any other education expenses if it chances in the future;

(d).	That the applicant lady seeks orders from the court for the Respondent man to pay for rental/apartment costs towards the accommodation for the lady and their son between the sum of $2,000.00 to $3,000.00 monthly or for the Respondent man to provide a suitable apartment for the lady and the child to reside at.

(e).	Any other Orders Court deems just and equitable.”
2.	The Respondent man filed his Amended Form 6 Response on the 24th April 2017, seeking orders, to which I quote in verbatim as follows:-

(a).	“That the Applicants child maintenance application be dismissed. 

(b).	That the Applicants spousal maintenance application be dismissed.

(c).	That the Applicants accommodation rental application be dismissed.

(d).	That until the Form 9 and 10 Residence and contact for our son, SS is determined, the interim maintenance orders granted on 4th February 2016 are to continue to be in place.”

3.	The Respondent Man also filed a Form 12 and Form 23 applications on 05th May 2017 inter alia seeking Spousal maintenance and $1100 per month for rental be suspended. The Court also heard evidence regarding that application. 

4.	The following relevant documents were filled and submitted to the court.

a.	The Respondent’s The Application for reduction of Spousal maintenance sworn and filed on 23rd September 2016.

b.	The Applicant’s Supplementary Affidavit sworn on 28th September 2016 and filed on 29th September 2017.

c.	The Respondent’s Affidavit sworn and filed on 31st January 2017.

d.	The Applicant’s Affidavit in Reply sworn and filed 07th February 2017.

e.	Affidavit by CDV sworn on 06th April 2017 and filed on 25th April 2017.

f.	Ms. SA Supplementary Affidavit sworn on 28th September 2016 and filed on 29 September 2016.

5.	Currently, the Court will consider on the application for Spousal maintenance, The child maintenance would be determined after the determination of the child Residence application. 

6.	The matters proceeded for hearing on 23rd June 2017. Both parties were present and represented by their respective counsels.

ISSUES

7.	Whether the spousal maintenance should be granted to the applicant. If so what is the quantum.

8.	Whether the spousal Maintenance application and accommodation rental $1100.00 per month dismissed.
BACKGROUND FACTS
9.	The Parties were married on 15th August 2012. The Parties have a Son, SS was born on 01st August 2013.

10.	At present, the Applicant man has Interim Residence of SS; The Child Maintenance of $50.00 per week and $100.00 worth of groceries has been suspended until further Orders of the Court; and the Applicant pays the Respondent Spousal Maintenance of $150.00 per week. The Applicant also pays rental of $1,100.00 for the 00 Borron Road Flat, in Suva.

EVIDENCE
11.	I will not reiterate the entire evidence on the court but reference would only be made to the relevance of evidence to the present application and for analysis purpose. Also I wish to emphasis some portion of evidence with intention of analyzing the same potions later without reproducing the same.

12.	This Court has heard all the evidence in Court. It has further scrutinized the documents that were tendered in Court together with the submissions for the parties. I wish to cite the submissions where the contents which are correctly reflected. (Please refer MMB v.TL Fiji Family High Court Case No 13/SUV/0013). 
THE LAW, EVIDENCE AND ANALYSIS 
Spousal Maintenance
13.	The Applicant makes the Application under section 155 of the Family Law Act 2003 which states that; A party to a marriage is liable to maintain the other party, to the extent that the first mentioned party if reasonably able to do so, if, and only if, that other party is unable to support herself or himself adequately, whether-

(a)	by reason of having the care and control of a child of the marriage who has not attained the age of 18 years;
(b)	by reason of age or physical or mental incapacity for appropriate gainful employment; or
(c)	for any other adequate reason, having regard to any relevant matter referred to in section 157.

14.	The above mentioned sec 155 referred to in section 157 and retrieve to consider any relevant mattes referred to the section. 

Matters to be taken into consideration in relation to spousal maintenance 

157. in exercising jurisdiction under Section 155, the Court may take into account only the following matters:-

(a).	The age and state of health of each of the parties;
(b).	The income, property and financial resources (including any interest in leasehold or real estate which is inalienable) of each of the parties and the physical and mental capacity of each of them for appropriate gainful employment;
(c).	Where wither party has the care or control of a child of the marriage who had not attained the age of 18 years;
(d).	Commitments of each of the parties that are necessary to enable the party to support-
(i).	Himself or herself; and
(ii).	A child or another person that the party has a duty to maintain;
(e).	The responsibilities of either party to support any other person;
(f).	The eligibility of either party for a pension, allowance or benefit under.
(i).	Any law of Fiji Islands or of another country; or
(ii).	Any superannuation fund or scheme, whether the fund or scheme was authorized or operates within or outside of the Fiji Islands.
(g).	The rate of any such pension, allowance or benefit being paid to either party;
(h).	A standard of living that in all circumstances is reasonable;
(i).	The extent to which the payment of maintenance to the party whose maintenance is under consideration would increase the earnings capacity of that party by enabling that party to undertake a course of education or training or to establish himself or herself in a business or otherwise to obtain an adequate income;
(j).	The extent to which the party whose maintenance is under consideration has contributed to the income, earning capacity property and financial resources of the other party;
(k).	The duration of the marriage and the extent to which it has affected the earning capacity of the party whose maintenance is under consideration;
(l).	If either party is cohabitating with another person, the financial circumstances relating to the cohabitation;
The terms of any order made or proposed to be made under Section 161 in relation to the property of the parties”.

15.	In taking into account the income, earning capacity, property and financial resources of a party to the proceedings, the Court must have regard to the capacity of the party to earn and derive income, including any assets of, under the control of or held for.

16.	The Applicant and Respondent got married on 15th August 2012 and both got separated on 11th November 2015. The conditional order of dissolution of marriage was given in July 2017.

17.	S.2 of the (Family Law Act) provides "financial matters", in relation to the parties to a marriage, means matters with respect to- 
(a) the maintenance of one of the parties; 
(b) the property of those parties or of either of them; or 
(c) the maintenance of children of the marriage;

"matrimonial cause" means- 
(a) proceedings between the parties to a marriage, or by the parties to a marriage, for an order of- 
(i) dissolution of marriage; or (ii) nullity of marriage; 
(b) proceedings for a declaration as to the validity of a marriage or of the dissolution or annulment of a marriage by order or otherwise; 
(c) proceedings between the parties to a marriage with respect to the maintenance of one of the parties to the marriage; ….”
18.	S 27.-(1) provides for Institution of proceedings Subject to this section, proceedings under this Act must be instituted by application. (2) A respondent may, in a response to an application, include an application for any order or declaration under this Act. (3) Where a final order for dissolution of marriage or of nullity of marriage has been of the definition made, proceedings of a kind referred to in sub-paragraph (c) or (d) of the definition of "matrimonial cause" in section 2(1) (not being proceedings seeking the discharge, suspension, revival or variation of an order previously made in proceedings with respect to the maintenance of a party) cannot be instituted before the expiration of 2 years after the date of the making of the order or the date of commencement of this Act, whichever is the later, except by leave of the court in which the proceedings are to be instituted. (4) The court must not grant leave under subsection (3) unless it is satisfied that hardship would be caused to a party to a marriage or to a child of the marriage if leave were not granted.

19.	In the current matter, the parties marriage should dissolved finally in August 2017 this means that any spousal maintenance application has not expired. It is also noted that the orders sought by the Applicant lady for spousal maintenance relates to matrimonial (rights).

20.	As discussed above, there are 03 statutory tests in S.155 of the FLA.It is seen that issue of liability in the sense that the liability of one spouse to maintain the other arises as soon as the parties enter into a marriage. To qualify for spousal maintenance;
a.	The spouse seeking spousal maintenance should be "unable to adequately support herself" for one the reasons set out in Section 155; and

b.	The Respondent must be reasonably able to maintain the Applicant spouse.
21.	In RH-v- NN Fiji Family High Court Appeal Case Number 10/LBS/001, delivered on 20th January 2012, Her Ladyship Madam Justice Anjala Wati clearly enunciated above position as; 
"There is no evidence to suggest that the wife qualifies for spousal maintenance under s 155 of the FLA. Since the wife was unemployed at the time of the hearing and had 2 children of the marriage under 18 years, the Magistrate assumed that she was entitled to maintenance. That assumption was wrong in law as there has to be evidence by the wife to meet the statutory test for her to qualify for an order for spousal maintenance. "(Emphasis added)

22.	The court should consider amongst others whether the applicant is unable to support herself adequately pursuant to section 155 and 157 of the FLA  to consider the income, property and financial resources (including any interest in leasehold or real estate which is inalienable) of each of the parties and the physical and mental capacity of each of them for appropriate gainful employment;

23.	To begin with on 19th July 2017 in her evidence Ms SA stated that she had a Master’s Degree in English and Bachelors in Education.  In her evidence, Ms SA clarified that she had a Bachelors of Arts Degree; Master’s Degree in English and Bachelors in Education Degree. At annexure “SA2” of her Affidavit in Reply filed on 07th February 2017, Ms. SA annexed her educational qualifications.

24.	Further, Ms SA stated that she had applied to the Fiji Teachers Registration Board to have her qualifications recognised and registered.  That this would have then enabled her to work her as a Teacher in Fiji.  However, when the Fiji Teachers Registration Board wrote to University which issued Ms SA’s Degrees, the University did not response back in acknowledgment.  Ms SA stated that she cannot contact the University in person The Indian University should reply to the Fiji Teachers Registration Boards queries in relation to her degrees.

25.	That in examination in chief, Ms SA stated that she was never on a Fiji work permit.  However in cross examination, she agreed that Mr Singh’s Company IS Limited obtained a Work permit for her.  However, she never worked for the company. But, the respondent deposited monies to the applicant’s bank account. Ms SA arrived in Fiji on 2nd August 2012. Those six days later, on 8th August 2012, Mr Singh opened an Account with ANZ Bank for Ms SA.  A copy of the Account statement in annexure “SA14” of Ms SA’s Affidavit in Reply sworn and filed on 7th February 2017.  Mr Singh deposited $18,000.00 as an opening deposit to enable Ms SA to survive if anything unwanted happened to Mr Singh. 

26.	Ms. SA stated that she was a qualified teacher and had 7 to 8 years teaching experience in India.( annexure “SA2” of her Affidavit in Reply filed on 07th February 2017, Ms. SA annexed her educational qualifications and at paragraph 26 of her Supplementary Affidavit filed 29th  September 2016.

27.	It is evident that the Applicant also has sufficient finance. Paragraph 48 of her Supplementary Affidavit in Reply filed on 07th February 2017, Ms. SA stated:“... Moreover, I have enough sufficient finance in my bank account in Indian to assist me and my child until I am able to find employment in Fiji. Annexed hereto and marked ‘SA 16” is a copy of my bank statement from India ... .”Paragraph 33 of Mr. Singh’s Affidavit sworn and filed on 31st January 201 7 states: “However, on 16th June 2011, she deposited 7 lakhs in the Oriental Bank of Commerce in India. Annexed and marked “AS 44” is a Bank Statement.” At paragraph 50 of her Supplementary Affidavit sworn and tiled on 07th February 2017, Ms. SA did not deny she had deposited the 7 lakhs.

28.	Moving on according to Mr.AS evidence he is a businessman and earns $4800.00 per week. He also has assets reflected in Form 6. The respondent then stated that he was one of the Shareholders of IS Limited.  That the other shareholder was PK, who had provided all materials needed when the Company was first started. 

29.	The Respondent also testified that as a result of the Court proceedings between Mr Singh and Ms SA; IS Limited had lost approximately $2,000,000.00 in revenue in the last two years.  Instead of concentrating on business and submitting tenders for new projects, Mr Singh had to attend Court and to answer to new applications and Affidavits. 

30.	The Court also should consider the age and state of health of each of the parties; By reason of age or physical or mental incapacity for appropriate gainful employment: In her Form 5 and Affidavits, Ms. SA and Mr.AS have not revealed that she suffers from any physical or mental disabilities preventing her from gainful employment. Ms. SA is 41 years of age. Mr.ASis 49 years of age now.

31.	The Court also should consider whether a party has the care or control of a child of the marriage who had not attained the age of 18 years; Commitments of each of the parties that are necessary to enable the party to support-Himself or herself; and A child or another person that the party has a duty to maintain; The responsibilities of either party to support any other person;

32.	It is not disputed that Mr.AS financially supports their son SS since birth; He also supports himself; his mother; his sister and his two nieces.

33.	That at present Mr. AS employed a nanny at home to help look after SS.  That his mother cooks food.  That his mother and the nanny do the house work. Thus it is understood that the respondent has to maintain his mother and has to pay wages for the nanny and the domestic help.

34.	At present Mr.AS paid rental for two rented accommodation.  He paid $2,200.00 per month for his home at 29 Salato Road and $1,100.00 per month for the flat at 00 Borron Road. He also pays spousal maintenance of $150.00 per week.

35.	According to Mr Singh should he did not have to pay Ms SA Spousal Maintenance and Rental, he would save these monies for SS’s future.  That at present, while SS was 4 years Mr Singh was 49 years.  Mr Singh had to work really hard for SS’s future and raise and educate him for the next 20 years.  Mr Singh does not know how long he can continue to work.

36.	That at IS Limited, Mr Singh employed 11 staffs. He also has to pay their wages.

37.	The Court should also consider that the eligibility of either party for a pension, allowance or benefit under. Any law of Fiji Islands or of another country; or any superannuation fund or scheme, whether the fund or scheme was authorized or operates within or outside of the Fiji Islands and the rate of any such pension, allowance or benefit being paid to either party; The Court only has evidence of the respondent’s such benefits including his FNPF reflected in Form 6.The respondent has FNPF while the Court is not aware whether the applicant has such benefits in India or not.

38.	The Court should also consider the extent to which the party whose maintenance is under consideration has contributed to the income, earning capacity property and financial resources of the other party; The duration of the marriage and the extent to which it has affected the earning capacity of the party whose maintenance is under consideration

39.	Parties married in August 2012 and separated in November 2015.The marriage subsisted for 3 years. There is no evidence to show that she contributed to the income of Mr. AS. Mr That his first wife, SK and her father had given him $40,000.00 to start IS Limited and he has a business partner. 

40.	I am of the view that the role of the wife during the marriage has not effect that qualifications and ability diminished in any manner. The respondent a work Permit for Ms SA to work as his Personal Secretary at IS Limited. Although she did not work she received wages which were deposited in her ANZ Bank Account as reflected in evidence. Thus it was on her own elective not to work having had an opportunity. According to her evidence, she did not use the money deposited by the respondent meaning that she has savings.

41.	The Court should also consider the incapability’s of the Applicant lady as follows; By reason of having care and control of a child of the marriage who has not attained the age of 18 years: In this matter the parties have a Son, born on 01st August 2013, of the marriage and the Applicant/lady currently does not have the child in her care and control. The Respondent has Interim Residence of the child until further orders of the Court and takes care of all his expenses. Section 86 of the Act defines the primary duty of the parents of a child:
(1)	The parents of a child have, subject to this Division, the primary duty to maintain the child.
(2)	Without limiting subsection (1), the duty of a parent to maintain a child-
(a)	is not lower priority than the duty of the parent to maintain any other child or another person;
(b)	has priority over all commitments of the parent other than commitments necessary to enable the parent to support-
(i)	himself or herself; or
(ii)	any other child or another person that the parent has a duty to maintain; and
42.	In the present case, the respondent caters for all the financial necessities of the child without any form of monetary contribution from the applicant.

43.	Unable to adequately support herself and for any other adequate reason: The Court wishes to remind about her visa restrictions.

44.	It is also a duty of the court taking into account the income, earning capacity, property and financial resources of a party to the proceedings, the Court must have regard to the capacity of the party to earn and derive income, including any assets of, under the control of or held for. The responsibilities of either party to support any other person; the eligibility of either party for a pension, allowance or benefit under any law of Fiji Islands or of another country; or any superannuation fund or scheme.( emphasis added)

45.	The Applicant was a qualified teacher and has 7 to 8 years teaching experience in India and further states that she also has a Master’s Degree in English and Bachelor’s in Education. She has educational and professional qualifications as well. The respondent has education up to sixth Form since his parents could not afford to pay school fees. That his first job was as a tyre and vehicle washer boy.  

46.	In cross examination, Ms SA agreed that she was involved in setting up “Sole” an online business where women could sell things that they had sewn knitted or made.  But she did not earn any income.  As noted she has sufficient funds.

47.	Moving on’ I wish to address the credibility of the Applicant. Needless to say, the applicant is an educated person.  Therefore when assessing her evidence, I guide myself with the principles enunciated in the decision of the British Columbia Court of Appeal, case of Faryna -v- Chorny [1952] 2 D.L.R where it was held at page 356 as follows:

"If a trial judge's finding of  credibility  (and I would add reliability) is to depend solely on which person he thinks made the better appearance of sincerity in the witness box, we are left with a purely arbitrary finding and justice would then depend upon the best actors in the witness box. On reflection, it becomes almost axiomatic that the appearance of telling the truth is but one of the elements that enter into the  credibility  of the evidence of a witness. Opportunities for knowledge, powers of observation, judgment and memory, ability to describe clearly what he has seen and heard, as well as other factors, combine to produce what is called credibility”

48.	That in examination in chief, Ms SA stated that Mr Singh did not open a Bank Account for her. In cross examination, she agreed that Mr Singh had opened a Bank Account for her.

49.	That in examination in chief, Ms SA stated that Mr Singh did not give her a vehicle to drive.  However, in cross examination, she agreed that Mr Singh had given her vehicles to drive. The respondent testified after three months of arrival, Mr Singh gave Ms SA a Mitsubishi Lancer in approximately late October 2012 and she drove that.  In January 2013, Mr Singh upgraded Ms SA’s vehicle to a Subaru Outback.  Then on 24th December 2013, Mr Singh purchased a brand new Hyundai Santa Fe for $100,000.00, and Ms SA drove that until she left Mr Singh on 11th November 2015.

50.	That in examination in chief, Ms SA stated that there were no housemaids and nannies to assist her.  However, in  cross examination, she agreed that Mr Singh did employ housemaids and nannies after the child was born.

51.	S. 157 lists a whole range of matters to be considered to which I have given consideration to. Comparing the income, earning capacity of the both parties, I am of the view that applicant is able to support herself adequately and reasonably able to support to cater for her basic needs and also  has capacity for appropriate gainful employment. But, she has a challenge. The Court consider that currently the applicant cannot work in Fiji because of her visa restrictions and requirement for her to get her teaching qualifications recognised in Fiji.

52.	Considering above mentioned paragraphs, I have difficulty in accepting the applicant’s attempts to secure for an employment since November 2015.

53.	Now, I would like to analyse the weekly expenditure of the applicant. According to her Form 5 (part F) her expenses for necessary commitment per week indicates sum of $590.00. 

54.	With uttermost respect to the counsels, I note that neither the applicant failed to justify her expenses in part F nor cross examined the applicant regarding the same. This includes the House girl, which she pays a sum of $210.00. But there is no evidence show that there is a house girl employed by the applicant. 

55.	I wish to reproduce her expenses per week for clarity.
ITEM	FOR YOU	
Food	60.00	
Electricity 	50.00	
Water 	10.00	
Telephone	20.00	
Clothing and shoes	20.00	
Fares/car parking	10.00	
Education expenses, including fees and levies	40.00	
WIFI		
House girl	210.00	
Baby products		
Toiletries 	20.00	
Diapers		
Entertainment	50.00	
Beautician	50.00	
TOTAL	590.00	

Considering above expenses and lack of evidence to support, the Court is of the view that $200.00 per month FEA bill only for the applicant is too exorbitant. She also spends $20.00 per week for telephone. She is unemployed and thus paying $100.00 per week for taxi deems to be an unnecessary expenditure. She also spends $100.00 per week for entertainments and for the beautician which could exclude or reduced the amount from the basic necessities. She also pays for Education expenses, including fees and levies $40.00 per week but she fails to give evidence to support her claim. Ms SA stated in her evidence that she is a vegetarian so her food does not cost too much.

56.	The Applicant has not provided any evidence that she has made any effort to find employment to date. The respondent is only paying $150.00 per week. Thus it is questionable as to how she could cater for every expense that she has listed in her application. Either she has means to cater $590.00 per week or she was not truthful about her expenditure.

57.	Considering the expenses reflected in Form 5 which is exorbitant on the face of it and considering that the applicant only survived by the maintenance of $150.00 per week as spousal maintenance, the amount is sufficient for her maintenance. Considering the savings of the applicant which was saved from the finances of the respondent (while she was in Fiji) it is just and fair in all the circumstances, the Applicant utilise $50.00 from the savings until she secure an employment after the maintenance period at any event she failed to secure an employment.

58.	As discussed above, on one hand, the spouse seeking spousal maintenance should be “unable to adequately support herself” for one the reasons set out in section 155; and on the other hand the Respondent must be reasonably able to maintain the Applicant spouse.

59.	In the case of RADM v. AYM – Fiji Family High Court Case Number: 13/Suv/0403 Her Ladyship Madam Justice Anjala Wati also stated considering the financial capabilities of the wife concluded that “the wife does not have responsibility to support anyone else and I find that under s. 155 of the FLA and taking into account s. 157 factors, she has not established that she is liable to be maintained by the husband.” 

60.	She also stated that she had applied for Fiji Citizenship on Spousal Category.  While she had applied in November 2016, she had not since advised the Fiji Immigration Department that on 14th July 2017, the parties had been divorced. Given the change of the circumstances, there may be a difficulty for the applicant in obtaining Fiji citizenship under spousal category. 

61.	In her evidence Ms SA stated that when she acquires her Fiji Citizenship, she intends to pursue a career in knitting and sewing or as a teacher. Moreover at paragraph 26 of her Supplementary Affidavit sworn on 28th September 2016, and filed on 29th September 2016, Ms SA stated that she intended to work as a Teacher as soon as she got her Fiji Citizenship. Ms SA also needs to make an effort to have her teaching qualifications recognised and registered in Fiji.

62.	In his evidence the respondent testified that Ms. SA had previously stayed with CVD and EDV in their luxurious three bedrooms apartments in Lami. His contention that she could always live with them again. Mr.AS read paragraphs 6 and 7 of CDV Affidavit filed on 25th April 2017.Ms SA also confirmed that in November and December 2015 Ms SA stayed with CVD and EDV in their three bedrooms apartment in Lami.  That she could always live with them again as friends.

63.	Mr Singh also testified that; he only agreed to pay rental to ensure SS had a home to stay while he was with Ms. SA. While SS was with Ms SA at CVD and EDV apartment in Lami in November 2015 he suffered from multiple insect bites.  That Ms SA was a mere beneficiary of the flat Mr.AS provided for SS

64.	The respondent sought to dismiss the application of spousal maintenance and application for rental. Mr.AS ubmitted that he no longer wants to pay spousal maintenance to Ms. SA. Nor does he want to pay rental for a Flat occupied by her. He submits that Ms. SA is capable of maintaining her herself and paying her own accommodation rental. He relies on the Applicant’s Affidavits; she stated that she had the financial resources to support herself. 

65.	In this current situation, the Respondent has the Interim Residence of the child and takes care of all the child’s expenses. Therefore it is not fair to allow the Respondent to pay for the rental of 2 bed room flats, while the child is under his care.  

66.	I wish to recap above analysis; The applicant states in her Supplementary Affidavit in Reply filed on 07th February 2017, that the lady has sufficient finance in her bank account in Indian to assist her and her child until she is able to find employment in Fiji The applicant also failed to provide any admissible medical certificate or report to show that she suffers from poor health. Since she got married she was a dependent on the Respondent. From respondent’s income he assists himself; his Mother and SS. He also maintains his sister and her two daughters in USA as stated in his evidence. The wife does not have responsibility to support anyone else.
Conclusion;
67.	In conclusion, I find that the Applicant has failed to successfully satisfy the court, that since separation, particularly from November 2015 she attempted to secure an employment/work permit. The court understands that she cannot directly apply for a work permit. But, she had time and money to get recognises her qualifications. The applicant also fails to satisfy the Court whether she attempted to secure an employment in the private sector/private school or in a University as an expatriate.

68.	I have difficulty in accepting the applicant’s attempts to secure for an employment. 

69.	Since she married to the Respondent, she solely dependent on him. After the separation also she solely survived   by the respondent. During the comparatively short marriage the wife was not the primary homemaker and parent, there was a nanny and house girl and the husband had been the primary earner and a co-parent. It is difficult to assess to what extent if any it could be said that the wife contributed to the husband’s present income earning capacity. But considering the evidence it a very lesser contribution. She also already benefited for whatsoever contribution she had made. She did not fulfil any obligation as a wife since November 15.

70.	I am satisfied that there is no any basis for me to consider long term spousal maintenance for the educationally qualified and comparatively younger applicant. (than the respondent).

71.	I would conclude, on all of the evidence, that the husband reasonably has had and has the capacity to pay the spousal maintenance ordered by the Court to the ex-wife. 

72.	The applicant also should understand that her ex-husband conferred upon a luxury life style to her; however the marriage was over. 

73.	The applicant should utilise the period given by this Court to meet the criteria of the Immigration Department to secure an employment (work permit) or obtain Fiji citizenship should she qualify under the criteria. She also may apply as an expat.

74.	The Applicant also should take necessary actions to increase the earnings capacity of her by enabling that her to undertake a course of education or training or to establish herself in a business or otherwise to obtain an adequate income to support herself if necessary;

75.	The applicant also may utilise her savings after expiration of maintenance and she should secure an employment to adequately support herself at any event she fails to secure an employment by April 2018. 

76.	The Applicant is entitled to have Spousal maintenance $150 per week until 12-04-2018. Thus the respondent shall continue to pay $150.00 per week until the said date effecting today. 

77.	The Court wish to grant $500.00 per month as rental until month of April 2018. (April 2018 rent included)This is a reasonable amount for the applicant and for the child to secure for an average accommodation. 
NOW THEREFORE BE IT ORDERED BY THE COURT THAT: 
78.	The Respondent shall pay Spousal maintenance $150 per week effecting from today until 12 April 2018.

79.	The Respondent shall pay rental of $500.00 effecting from today until 12 April 2018.

80.	In the event of default of spousal maintenance the applicant to file a JDS. 

81.	Parties to bear their own costs.

30 days to appeal.

Concluding Remarks;
Fiji judiciary thrives to promote gender equality. True gender equality is a subject that made the stakeholders embarks on a journey to help women achieve financial independence.
I wish to quote from http://www.pacificwomen.org/focus-areas/economic-empowerment/” as the concluding remark.
“Nations thrive when women can participate in politics, business and society as equals. Ensuring that women are free to fully participate in their country’s economy is not just the right thing to do, but the smart thing to do. The UN has estimated that low female participation in labor markets in the Asia–Pacific region costs the region up to US$47 billion each year. When women have higher incomes and bargaining power their children tend to be healthier and better educated. This tends to increase a society’s long -term prosperity.( emphasis added)

LAKSHIKA FERNANDO

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE

On this 11th day of August 2017