DISTRIBUTED BY VERITAS TRUST Tel: [263] [4] 794478 Fax & Messages [263] [4] 793592 E-mail: veritas@mango.zw 19 Veritas makes every effort to ensure the provision of reliable information, but cannot take legal responsibility for information supplied. Judgment No. SC 37/18 Civil Appeal No. SC 433/16 [41] This Court has already found that the dismissal of the application in its entirety, particularly the upward variation of the maintenance for the minor children, was wrong. It is a truism that as children grow, so too do their needs. In this particular case, some of the needs of the children cannot be treated separately from those of the appellant. Shared expenses such as food, toiletries, consumables, electricity, water, and the like, cannot be divided into categories of what is consumed by the appellant and what is consumed by the two minor children. INTERIM VARIATION OF MAINTENANCE NECESSARY [42] Having reached the conclusion that there is need for the factual disputes in this matter to be fully ventilated in a trial, I am of the further view that there is an obvious imperative for the interim variation of the amount payable in respect of each of the children until such time as the matter is fully and finally determined. Trials in this jurisdiction can take a long time to complete. In the meantime, the children will need reasonable maintenance. [43] In the court a quo, the respondent consistently offered to pay the sum of $300 per child, until they complete their secondary education, although he attached conditions to such offer. In coming to a figure that addresses the interests of the children on an interim basis, this court must take into account that offer as well as the other evidence on record which suggests that the respondent is not a poor man. Even taking into account the sum of $200 which the respondent is under obligation to pay to the appellant in respect of the maintenance of the children, it is clear that the appellant does not have sufficient resources to meet the general expenses both for herself and the children. Whilst the appellant described the respondent as a