B v B (2243/2017) [2017] ZAFSHC 98 (15 June 2017)

B v B (2243/2017) [2017] ZAFSHC 98 (15 June 2017)

The court found that the respondent is already paying the majority of his income towards the applicant and the minor child, leaving him in a dire financial state with no surplus funds to meet further financial demands. Some of the applicant’s claimed expenses were deemed unreasonable. The respondent’s willingness to continue existing payments was noted. Regarding custody and access, the court held that the best interests of the child require interim supervised visitation at the respondent’s parents’ home, pending a Family Advocate report. The applicant was awarded primary care of the child, with the respondent to continue paying for the house, vehicle, medical aid, school fees, and...

Citation
[2017] ZAFSHC 98
Parties
Applicant: C. B.; Respondent: H. B.
Court
Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
15 June 2017
Case Number
2243/2017
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Interim Relief Pending Divorce Under Rule 43
Outcome
Interim relief granted in part; primary care of the minor child awarded to the applicant; respondent to continue specified payments and maintenance for the child at R1125.00; supervised visitation ordered; Family Advocate report to be obtained; costs reserved.
Judges
Ramdeyal
Legal Topics
Interim Maintenance, Custody and Access, Rule 43 Application, Best Interests of Child
Family and Children Civil Procedure Interim Maintenance Custody and Access Rule 43 Application Best Interests of Child

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

C. B.

Applicant

H. B.

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Interim Relief Pending Divorce Under Rule 43

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant is entitled to interim maintenance under Rule 43 pending divorce.
  2. 2 Whether the respondent has the financial capacity to pay additional maintenance and expenses.
  3. 3 What interim custody and access arrangements serve the best interests of the minor child.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the respondent is already paying the majority of his income towards the applicant and the minor child, leaving him in a dire financial state with no surplus funds to meet further financial demands. Some of the applicant’s claimed expenses were deemed unreasonable. The respondent’s willingness to continue existing payments was noted. Regarding custody and access, the court held that the best interests of the child require interim supervised visitation at the respondent’s parents’ home, pending a Family Advocate report. The applicant was awarded primary care of the child, with the respondent to continue paying for the house, vehicle, medical aid, school fees, and...

Court Disposition

Interim relief granted in part; primary care of the minor child awarded to the applicant; respondent to continue specified payments and maintenance for the child at R1125.00; supervised visitation ordered; Family Advocate report to be obtained; costs reserved.

Orders

  • Primary care of the minor child is awarded to the applicant; the child is to reside with her.
  • The respondent is allowed reasonable telephonic contact during the week and supervised visitation at his parents’ home every Saturday between 10h00 and 17h00.