Entry Instance

HTTP 200 OK
Allow: GET, PUT, PATCH, DELETE, HEAD, OPTIONS
Content-Type: application/json
Vary: Accept

{
    "id": 453004,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/453004/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 1006,
    "type": "speech",
    "speaker_name": "Hon. Waiganjo",
    "speaker_title": "",
    "speaker": {
        "id": 2644,
        "legal_name": "John Muriithi Waiganjo",
        "slug": "john-muriithi-waiganjo"
    },
    "content": "Hon. Temporary Deputy Chairman, I beg to move:- THAT, Clause 84 be amended by deleting Sub-clause (3). Hon Members, Clause 84(3) reads:- “Where either the husband or wife has, without reasonable [good] grounds withdrawn from the society of the other, the aggrieved party may make an application to the court for restitution of conjugal rights and the court, on being satisfied of the truth of the statements made in such application and there being no legal ground why the application should not be granted, may order restitution of conjugal rights accordingly”. In my mind, conjugal rights are between spouses and when they retreat to their quiet chambers to purport to exercise this right, they are only the two of them. If a party moves to court and gets an order for his or her conjugal rights to be protected, who shall follow them to enforce that order? Secondly, at a time when we are talking about marital rape for instance, if the court gives this kind of an order, then either the husband or wife may move to their house The electronic version of the Official Hansard Report is for information purposesonly. A certified version of this Report can be obtained from the Hansard Editor."
}