Man demands ‘belly maintenance’ refund

Angered by the insistence of his now ex-girlfriend that he did not father her unborn child, a Corporate Area man is demanding that he be reimbursed all the monies he spent on her pre-natal care.

"Me need back all of my money because me spend up all my money do DNA [test] and ultrasound and me nuh even know if this baby is mine," Dayle Stewart said in the Kingston and St Andrew Parish Court on Thursday.

The 23-year-old man appeared in court on a charge of assault occasioning actual bodily harm after he allegedly slapped the complainant in her face because she allowed a male friend to visit the home. Stewart contends that he did not hit the complainant.

On Thursday, he told the court that owing to the turn of events he needed a DNA test to determine the paternity of the child. However, the complainant said there was no need for any test. She said Stewart is not the father, and she has already communicated this to him. She also said that he has not spent a lot of money supporting her pregnancy.

"A one likkle $15,000 him a gwan so over?," she retorted. A nuh nothing that!"

The complainant told Senior Parish Judge Lori-Anne Cole-Montaque that Stewart got "vex because me tell him fi come out my house".

'NAH PAY NO BILL'

"Him naah pay nuh bill or nothing, Your Honour," the complainant said.

A determined Stewart asked what would be done to ensure he is refunded the money he has spent on the unborn child.

"How me a guh get back my money, Your Honour? Because she have three pickney and me did a help her only because me think this baby was mine," Stewart said.

He shared further that as a result of the incident between the complainant, his fiancee, to whom he got engaged about a month ago, has been arguing with him.

"Your Honour, my 'wife' is overseas and a the money weh me get from her me affi use and mine her three pickney dem," Stewart said, evoking laughter in the courtroom and amusement for those in custody.

Stewart was made the subject of a fingerprint order and was ordered not to have contact or communication with the complainant. A stop order was also imposed.

The matter was adjourned until January 25 next year.