A thread 🧵
Mr and Mrs married under customary law in ‘08 and subsequently entered into a civil marriage. Mrs instituted divorce proceedings and claimed interim maintenance for herself and 2 children in the amount of R50 000 pm and contribution of R50 000 for legal costs.
Mr and Mrs married under customary law in ‘08 and subsequently entered into a civil marriage. Mrs instituted divorce proceedings and claimed interim maintenance for herself and 2 children in the amount of R50 000 pm and contribution of R50 000 for legal costs.
The maintenance for the children includes a major child who was born of a relationship between Mrs and a third party.
Mrs also claimed that Mr must: retain her and the 2 children on his medical aid, pay all school expenses for the minor child, all expenses
Mrs also claimed that Mr must: retain her and the 2 children on his medical aid, pay all school expenses for the minor child, all expenses
for major child’s tertiary education, rates and taxes, water & electricity, internet, DSTV and Netflix, access gate costs, ADT and Merc and Polo insurance costs.
Mrs had been unemployed since 2017 and there was never any pressure for her to look for employment as Mr had always been gainfully employed and able to maintain her and the children.
Mr had been paying for all household related expenses and also paid her an amount of between
Mr had been paying for all household related expenses and also paid her an amount of between
R28 000 and R32 000 pm for her personal needs. In addition, Mr gave her a credit card for her unrestricted use and also paid for the major child’s school expenses.
Though Mr is gainfully employed he decided not to continue with his responsibilities and due to this, Mrs
Though Mr is gainfully employed he decided not to continue with his responsibilities and due to this, Mrs
brought a Rule 43 application (application for interim maintenance). It was argued that in one of the parties exchanges, Mr sent a WhatsApp to Mrs where he stated that he will no longer be making available financial resources for Mrs until the divorce is finalised.
It was submitted that Mr has sufficient means to provide for the needs of Mrs as his business is to provide services to government departments mostly in respect of tenders secured by his company.
They bought their home worth R4 million rand CASH, spent R100 000 on renovations and purchased furniture to the value of more than R1 million rand. All of this was not disputed by Mr in his answering affidavit. The judgment describes him as “a man of attractive means.”
Mr argued that there was no legal obligation to maintain the major child as he has not adopted him.
It was then argued on behalf of Mrs that Mr had been maintaining the child without any qualms since 2018 after the biological father stopped contributing to his maintenance.
It was then argued on behalf of Mrs that Mr had been maintaining the child without any qualms since 2018 after the biological father stopped contributing to his maintenance.
Further, that there was a legal obligation on Mrs to maintain the child and as Mrs is married in community of property to Mr, Mr is indirectly contributing to the maintenance for the said major child.
It was argued that Mr had been “less than candid with the court” as he claimed that he is only receiving a salary of R40 000 pm and at the same time stating that he has monthly expenses to the tune of R68 584.40. The court was invited to take a dim view thereto and draw a
negative inference from Mr’s inability to demonstrate how does he afford to pay off the excesses more particularly as such amount excludes the amount of R28 000 pm which was paid to Mrs and some of his monthly payments to third parties including his girlfriend.
On Mr’s legal obligation to maintain the major child, the court was curious as to why Mr & Mrs were content at the fact that the biological father was not paying maintenance and found Mrs’ failure to provide an explanation as to why she would allow the father to stop maintaining
“unfathomable.” It was said that Mrs was taking advantage of Mr and at the same time, Mr was happy to oblige. Court said they only had themselves to blame.
Mr was ordered to contribute toward the maintenance of the major child for a period of 6 months during that period Mrs
Mr was ordered to contribute toward the maintenance of the major child for a period of 6 months during that period Mrs
must ensure that the biological father pays maintenance.
Mr was ordered to pay: R25 000 pm maintenance for Mrs, R5 000 pm per each child, to retain Mrs and the children on his medical aid, minor child’s school expenses, major child’s tertiary expenses, rates & taxes, water & electricity, internet charges, DSTV and Neflix, access gate
costs, ADT costs, insurance costs for the 2 vehicles and 2 equal instalments of R25 000 each contribution towards Mrs legal costs.
Judgment: saflii.org
Judgment: saflii.org
![G.R v R.R (38304/21) [2023] ZAGPPHC 111 (21 February 2023)](https://pbs.twimg.com/news_img/1630873760768163840/WpCzhRqq?format=png&name=orig)
Loading suggestions...