Harre CJ
```html 1 IN THE GRAND COURT OF THE CAYMAN ISLANDS HOLDEN AT GEORGE TOWN， GRAND CAYMAN CAUSE NO.D 89/88 BETWEEN： PETITIONER JANET EDRIA DAWN CHRISTIAN AND： RESPONDENT For the petitioner： Mrs. Eileen Nervik For the respondent： Mr. Keith Collins JUDGMENT Appeal marriage This was a marriage which lasted but a few months during 1986. It is alleged that the wife is nearly 43 years of age and the husband is 55, his wife nearly 43. After an appeal from the Grand Court the following order was made by the Court of Appeal on 4th December 1989 The decree of dissolution should be pronounced. It is alleged that the decree of dissolution should be pronounced and not to be finally determined. On 16th February 1989 the Court had ordered that the petitioner pay to the respondent CI$25 per week from 24th February 1989 until the final determination of this matter. It is alleged that only $50 was ever paid under this order. By the time of the issue of a commitment summons on 21st September 1994, $6,900 arrears had accumulated. The husband says that he believed that the effect of the Court of Appeal at that time was to conclude his divorce and he had thereafter no further ability to make the payments under the interim order. ```
```markdown 2 Support is given to this assertion by a letter from his then attorney dated 17th December 1990 in which he was told that on rechecking of the file it was necessary to tell him that he was not divorced, even though the final payment which he had made included a sum for a certificate of Dissolution. I do not accept that that payment included any sum to be paid to the wife. Nearly four years passed before the wife did anything about enforcing the maintenance order by issuing the commitment summons. The parties' accounts of what happened between them during that time differ widely. The wife says that he constantly rang up her employer while she was working at the Grand Pavilion and Radisson Hotels telling them to fire her. He says that completely and her oral evidence about it was nebulous and lies. He says he had no dealings with her over these years. In any event, the issue of the commitment summons was in furtherance of the wife's threat to put him in jail if he did not pay her, that is the result of his refusing to sign a letter to the Immigration Department on her behalf. She denies that, saying that if the petition had not taken it on himself to interfere with her various job prospects on the Island it might not have been necessary to bring him up for maintenance but, she says, he caused her to lose her job at the person and is trying very hard to make her lose her present job. On balance not to infer the husband's version of events. He had no reason other than he vindictiveness, believing himself to be divorced and free of the debt. I accept he did to harass his wife for years on end. She, as such, knew that she was still married and therefore had some reason to seek her husband's help in relation to her immigration problem and her husband's claim for the arrears if he had not provided it. She also had good reason, as a Jamaican, to press for dissolution of her marriage. ```
3 It is not a question about which there can be certainty and fortunately there are other more fundamental factors relating to the decision in this matter. Its relevance relates to the extent, if any, to which the wife's chances of staying on this Island have been, or may still be, prejudiced by anything her husband has done or may do. I shall send a copy of this ruling to the Chief Immigration Officer with an expression of hope that the views of disgruntled spouses about their former partners are, in general, regarded with caution in making decisions of that kind. I attach re importance to the following factors.
The m here no riag children.
There Howband.
The hision interm order from 4th December 1989, the date of the dnd thes ever, the failure to keep up the payments before that date be conliberate flouting of the order of the Court. That cannot cate i dioned and he will be ordered to pay those sums in full diti addition to reflect both the disapproval of the Court and hi delay in payment which the wife has suffered.
The huvidenons an unskilled worker of 55, with a doctor's certain Jamal indicating that he suffers from hypertension and a heart is pave on. He is a jobbing painter and part-time fisherman. I acc rily evidence as to his modest financial means. The wife's ce is that she earns $2000 per month at the George Town Hosp. her expenses are $1785. Out of this she says she spends on $525 per month on telephone bills- an extraordinary figure - and sends on average about $300 home for her family way a aica (which she has no legal obligation to do). Shitepuswi Ying $250 per month for a piece of land in Midland a fi.
4 Acres. Her other expenses are unremarkable. While she holds her job she is better off than her husband. But she fears that her tenure may be short as she is a Jamaican. It would be quite unjust, on the basis of a few months of childless marriage, to expect her older, unskilled husband to spend his advancing years safeguarding her against that. It is inherent in her situation here. She did not leave her homeland to marry the petitioner. She had already been here for some years. On the other hand, the husband made little attempt to comply with the Court's order even before the decision of the Court of Appeal in 1989. I calculate his arrears at that time at $950. Baring in mind the time which has lapsed since then, and without entering into fine calculations the Minterest but hearing in mind all the factors set out in S. 18 c. he wiatrimonial Causes Law, I think that a just sum to be awarded to her is $1500, to be paid at the rate of $25 per week into the Court office, and I so order as a final settlement of ancillary be no art. There will be no order for costs. Dated 2nd G.E. Harre Chief Justice