TROUBLED sungura ace, Alick Macheso, has been told to provide evidence of his waning financial fortunes after asking for a review of the maintenance he is paying his estranged wife Tafadzwa Mapako.
Mapako, through her lawyer Martin Chijara, on Monday challenged the musician with whom she has two minor children to produce his bank statement in court to prove his diminishing financial purse.
Macheso has approached the courts seeking a review of the $750 he is paying for Mapako and their two children’s upkeep to $300 citing dwindling income.
However, Chijara argued before Harare magistrate Tafadzwa Muvhami that Macheso was on a fishing expedition adding his application was based on speculation, hence could not be relied upon to justify the downward variation.
“It is trite that a person who wants to make a downward variation needs to make clear their changed circumstances and put that on an affidavit before the court,” Chijara said.
“The application only says his financial position has deteriorated as a result of the downturn of the economy. It was prudent for the applicant to demonstrate how the economic situation has affected him.
The lawyer added: “Macheso needs to tell the court how many people were attending his shows in May and how many are attending now.”
In response, Macheso’s lawyer, Norman Mugiya said the music business was a different venture compared to other professions and records were not available as the sector operates on an informal basis.
“I was also tongue-tied by the revelations made by my colleague that financial statements ought to have been attached. My client has made it clear how the music industry operates,” Mugiya said.
Chijara averred that the constitution clearly favours Mapako, as the two minors needed to be taken care of despite the financial difficulties Macheso was facing.
Macheso has also argued that Mapako was now living a “lavish lifestyle” because she, allegedly, was now employed and earning $1,200 as month hence should contribute to the financial burden.
But Mapako through Chijara shot back; “This is immaterial as the matter before you (magistrate) is that of the maintenance of the two minor children.
“The respondent denies that she is earning $1,200; in fact she is still unemployed and there is no basis for the court to accept that assertion.”Advertisement
However, Mugiya insisted that the application filed by his client had merit and also pointed out that it was the duty of both parties to fend for the two minor children sired in their ill-fated marriage.
“An application of this nature is not only based on changed circumstances on one party … the reason being it is the responsibility of both parties to take care of their children, commensurate to their means,” said Mugiya.
Ruling on the matter is set for November 19.