District Court orders full April household support after finding cash paid for heater

The District Court in Afghanistan ordered Hamid Rahimi to pay Farzana Rahimi the full 6,000 AFN April household contribution she sought, rejecting his request to deduct a 4,000 AFN cash payment. Presiding judge Chris issued the judgment on October 12, 2026, requiring payment within 14 days.

The dispute was not whether Farzana had received the cash: both parties accepted that she had. It was whether money delivered through Hamid’s brother paid part of the household support obligation or reimbursed her for a heater. The court recognized it as completed heater reimbursement, leaving April support entirely unpaid.

The signed receipt established delivery of 4,000 AFN but did not identify what the money was for. The decisive evidence was a WhatsApp exchange from the evening before delivery, which the formal judgment described as verifiable.

In that exchange, Hamid said the money was for the heater, and Farzana replied that April household support remained separate. Judge Chris found that the message clarified the otherwise unspecified receipt. The judgment also recorded Hamid’s acknowledgment that his earlier recollection was mistaken and that his message prevented him from claiming the payment was household support.

The court placed the burden on the payer to establish that a payment discharged a known maintenance obligation when an alternative debt was asserted and supported by evidence. Here, the heater reimbursement could not be counted a second time or retrospectively assigned to April support.

Farzana maintained that the couple had agreed on monthly household contributions of 6,000 AFN while living separately. She said April’s contribution remained unpaid and that the 4,000 AFN was repayment for a heater she had bought for Hamid.

Initially, she said she had no receipt, invoice or text message proving the heater purchase and could not recall its exact cost. She later produced the WhatsApp exchange, which the judge admitted into the record.

Hamid initially relied on the signed receipt, sought credit for 4,000 AFN and offered to pay the remaining 2,000 AFN. He objected to treating the exchange as authentic and conclusive; the judge overruled that objection. After being confronted with the messages, Hamid accepted that the receipt did not prove the payment’s purpose and sought credit only if the court found it related to April support.

According to Farzana’s account, the parties remained married but lived separately in Herat. Both accepted the monthly contribution of 6,000 AFN, so the case centred on allocating one cash transfer rather than determining the amount of support.

The judgment resolves that payment dispute and orders April’s outstanding contribution. It does not set out broader terms for future support or decide any other aspect of the parties’ separate living arrangements.