{"issue_text":"What constitutes just and equitable distribution of immovable assets","issue_type":"mixed","dispositive":"yes","related_facts":"Properties acquired during marriage, defendant's contributions"}
{"issue_text":"Whether defendant is entitled to post-divorce maintenance and quantum","issue_type":"law","dispositive":"yes","related_facts":"Defendant unemployed, plaintiff's income, duration of marriage"}
{"issue_text":"Which motor vehicles belong to parties and how they should be shared","issue_type":"fact","dispositive":"no","related_facts":"Toyota Hiace Regius, Toyota Ipsum, employer vehicles"}
{"issue_text":"Whether plaintiff imposed unreasonable access conditions","issue_type":"fact","dispositive":"no","related_facts":"Children's movement between parents"}
This summary was generated by AI. Use Zalari to read the full judgment.
background
Facts of the Case
Background
The parties married in 1995 and had three children. The plaintiff deserted the matrimonial home in 2009 and issued divorce summons in 2011, alleging irretrievable breakdown. Both parties agreed the marriage had broken down. The main disputes concerned distribution of immovable properties, motor vehicles, household furniture, and post-divorce spousal maintenance.
Read the full judgment, get AI analysis, and find related cases