Court acquits defendant of alimentary duty evasion, finding he fulfilled support obligations through shared custody and care.

The court acquitted the defendant of the charge of evoking alimentary obligations, ruling that he did not evade his duty. Although he did not make direct payments to the mother, the court found he fulfilled his support role by providing daily care, food, and clothing during his shared custody periods. The decision rests on the legal principle that evasion requires a lack of will to pay despite having the ability, which was absent given the defendant's active involvement in the children's lives.