J v J (17705/05) [2009] ZAGPPHC 303 (11 August 2009)
- Citation
- [2009] ZAGPPHC 303
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Court
- North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
- Panel
- Hartzenberg R
- Case number
- 17705/05
More details
- Court
- North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
- Panel
- Hartzenberg R
- Case number
- 17705/05
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The court found that the applicant had sufficiently demonstrated changed circumstances, namely the loss of his monthly income and the impact of a serious neck operation on his earning capacity. The respondent's allegations regarding hidden funds were unsupported by evidence. The court was satisfied that the applicant was no longer in a position to contribute to the respondent's maintenance as previously ordered. Accordingly, the existing Rule 43 order was suspended pending the outcome of the divorce proceedings.
Court disposition
Application granted. The existing Rule 43 maintenance order is suspended pending the divorce.
Orders
- The existing order under Rule 43 is suspended pending the divorce proceedings.
- The costs of this application will be costs in the divorce action.
02
Material facts
Parties
J P J[….]
ApplicantE G J[…]
RespondentAmounts and remedies
- Previous Monthly Income: ZAR 10,000
03
Procedural history
Posture
Urgent Application / Rule 43(6) Application to Vary Interim Maintenance Order
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the applicant has demonstrated changed circumstances justifying variation of the existing Rule 43 maintenance order.
- 02
Whether the applicant is currently able to contribute to the maintenance of the respondent.
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The applicant contends that since the previous order, his income from a brokerage business of R10,000 per month has ceased, and he has undergone a neck operation which has seriously affected his earning capacity. He submits that these constitute changed circumstances warranting suspension of the maintenance order.
- Respondent
- The respondent argues that the applicant has not shown any changed circumstances and alleges that he must have hidden funds from the sale of properties. She asserts that the applicant should still be able to contribute to her maintenance, but provides no evidence of his current financial position or liabilities.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Uniform Rule 43(6)
A Rule 43 maintenance order may be varied if the applicant demonstrates material changed circumstances since the order was made.
- 02
Taute v Taute 1974 (2) SA 675 (E)
The burden of proof rests on the applicant to show that his financial position has changed to the extent that he cannot comply with the existing order.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The court found that the applicant had sufficiently demonstrated changed circumstances, namely the loss of his monthly income and the impact of a serious neck operation on his earning capacity. The respondent's allegations regarding hidden funds were unsupported by evidence. The court was satisfied that the applicant was no longer in a position to contribute to the respondent's maintenance as previously ordered. Accordingly, the existing Rule 43 order was suspended pending the outcome of the divorce proceedings.
Obiter and limits
- The court noted that repeated litigation between the parties was regrettable and stemmed from ongoing disputes about the funding of their respective expenses.
- The respondent's failure to provide concrete evidence of the applicant's alleged hidden assets weakened her case.
Court disposition
Application granted. The existing Rule 43 maintenance order is suspended pending the divorce.
- The existing order under Rule 43 is suspended pending the divorce proceedings.
- The costs of this application will be costs in the divorce action.
Source and reliance status
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.
Judgment reading view
Judgment text
The complete available source text.
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Judgment
SAFLII Note: Certain personal/private details of parties or witnesses have been redacted from this document in compliance with the law and SAFLII Policy
IN DIE HOË HOF VAN SU1D-AFRIKA
(NOORD GAUTENG HOË HOF. PRETORIA)
SAAK NR: 17705/05
DATUM: 2009-07-14
11 August 2009
Not Reportable
Not of interest to other judges
10 In die saak tussen
J P J[….]……………………………………………………………………Applikant
en
E G J[…]…………………………………………………………………Respondent
UITSPRAAK
HARTZENBERG. R: Hierdie is die soveelste aansoek tussen hierdie partye wat in die vroeë tagtigerjare getroud is en wat sedert 2005 nie
20 meer saam woon nie. Dit blyk dat nadat die partye uitmekaar uit is die applikant, die man, baie siek geword het en in die intensiewe
eenheid van die hospitaal was en dat hy vir 'n ruk deur die respondente verpleeg is. Daar was skynbaar vooruitsigte dat daar 'n
versoening kon wees wat toe nie gerealiseer het nie. Dit is baie duidelik dat die moeilikheid tussen die partye eenvoudig is dat die partye nie eens is oor hoe die partye se uitgawes befonds moet word nie.
Hierdie aansoek word gebring as 'n aansoek ingevolge Reel 43(6) van die hofreëls en die respondente argumenteer dat die applikant
hoegenaamd geen saak uitgemaak het dat daar veranderde omstandighede bestaan nie. Ek kan nie akkoord gaan met daardie argument nie.
Die applikant sit uiteen dat toe die vorige bevel gemaak is hy 'n inkomste uit 'n makelaarsbesigheid gehad het van R10 000 per maand. Hy toon aan dat daardie inkomste weggeval het. Nou as dit nie 'n
10 veranderde omstandigheid is nie dan weet ek nie wat is 'n veranderde omstandigheid nie.
Maar meer nog, dit blyk dat die applikant intussen 'n nekoperasie ondergaan het en dat dit 'n ernstige inpak op sy verdienstevermoë
moet hê. Ek is tevrede dat daar wel veranderde omstandighede is en dat die hof moet kyk of daar 'n verandering van die bevel moet wees.
Die respondente beweer dat die applikant moet iewers geld hê, maar daar is nie bewys daarvan dat hy wel geld het nie. Sy sê 'n mens moet kyk na die eiendomme wat hy gehad het en wat verkoop is en wat die verkoopprys was en dan moet die afleiding wees dat hy groot
20 hoeveelhede geld gehad het wat hy op een of ander manier iewers wegsteek.
Daar word nie deur haar uiteengesit van watse skulde hy gehad het en hoe dit gekom het dat hy die eiendomme moes verkoop nie. Op die stukke soos dit tans voor my is, is ek tevrede:
1. Dat daar veranderde omstandighede is, en
2. Dat die applikant se verdienstevermoë nie sodanig is dat hy in
staat is om 'n bydrae te maak tot die onderhoud van die respondente nie.
In die gevolg maak ek die volgende bevel:
1. Die bestaande bevel ingevolge Reel 43 word opgeskort hangende die egskeiding in hierdie saak.
2. Die koste van hierdie aansoek sal koste in die egskeidingsgeding wees.
10
ME
VAN NIEKERK
Case-aware research
Ask AI about this case
The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.