DISTRIBUTED BY VERITAS TRUST Tel: [263] [4] 794478 Fax & Messages [263] [4] 793592 E-mail: veritas@mango.zw 5 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 the matrimonial assets and in bringing up the children, respondent should be able to contribute to her ongoing maintenance with little impact on his wealth. She further stated that, although the terms of the consent paper had been agreed upon, the terms were never fair in the circumstances of the marriage. Indeed, if she had known the details then of what she now knows about his assets, she never would have agreed to the terms in the consent paper. Accordingly she sought an order for the upward variation of the maintenance payable in respect of the children to $500 per month per child and to $2 000 per month in respect of herself. RESPONDENT’S CASE A QUO [9] The respondent’s submission was this. The appellant has more by way of financial and proprietary comfort and security than the vast majority of the Zimbabwean urban population. She has a secure job and resides rent free in a well-appointed four bedroomed property in a good area of Harare. She drives a sound and reliable car. The entirety of the children’s education as well as medical and dental requirements are fully paid for by himself. The family never enjoyed a high standard of living. Their lifestyle was more consistent with an average middle class urban family. He denied owning C & J Accounting and Secretarial Services but admitted that he is its Managing Director. He gave no further detail. During the subsistence of the marriage, they enjoyed average family holidays, in some cases using RCI timeshares. The former matrimonial home is owned by the A. W Mackintosh Trust, a trust which he formed. His annual income is $59 660 whilst his annual expenditure is $61 535, the result being an annual shortfall in the sum of $1 875.00. He admitted reducing the monthly payment for the children from $600 to $200 but explained that this was partly because the appellant was abusing the monies he would have paid and would convert the money to her personal benefit.