The court held that it had long been recognised that there was a reciprocal duty of support as between husband and wife and the duty endured stante matrimonio. It depended on the one spouse's need for support and the other's ability to provide it. In practice, however, the primary duty of maintaining the household rested upon the husband. He had to do so on a scale commensurate with the social position, financial means and standard of living of the spouses. He could not evade that responsibility by showing that his wife was receiving assistance from blood relations, friends or charitable institutions.
Permanent resident; marriage; freedom of movement; Zimbabwean Constitution; foreign national married to citizen; right to work
The instant application brought by the applicant, a citizen of Zimbabwe by birth and a permanent resident, sought to extend the ruling declaring that a female citizen of Zimbabwe, married to an alien, being a national of another country, was entitled by virtue of the protection of freedom of movement under s 22(1) of the Constitution of Zimbabwe to reside permanently with her husband in any part of Zimbabwe to embrace within her own mobility rights the right of her husband to lawfully engage in employment or other gainful activity in Zimbabwe.
The applicant submitted that to construe the phrase 'the right to reside in any part of Zimbabwe' in s 22(1) of the Constitution as merely entitling a citizen wife to have her alien husband living with her in the country, without affording him the ability to engage in gainful employment, would be unduly restrictive of that fundamental right.
The court ordered that, by virtue of such wife's right under s 22(1) of the Constitution to have her husband residing with her in any part of Zimbabwe: (a) the Chief Immigration Officer of Zimbabwe issue to the applicant's husband, within 30 days, such written authority as was necessary to enable him to remain in Zimbabwe on the same standing as any other alien who was a permanent resident; and (b) the applicant's husband be accorded the same rights as were enjoyed by all permanent residents of Zimbabwe, including the right to engage in employment or other gainful activity in any part of Zimbabwe and that the Chief Immigration Officer imposed no restriction upon such right.
Unless the protection of the freedom of movement of a wife who was a Zimbabwean citizen, guaranteed under s 22(1) of the Constitution of Zimbabwe, embraced the entitlement of that wife, residing permanently with her alien husband in Zimbabwe, to look to him for partial or total support, depending upon her circumstances, the exercise of her unqualified right to remain in Zimbabwe, as a member of a family unit, is put in jeopardy.