Keshav v Kesnav (13336/04) [2008] ZAGPHC 416; 2008 (5) SA 431 (W) (14 March 2008)

Keshav v Kesnav (13336/04) [2008] ZAGPHC 416; 2008 (5) SA 431 (W) (14 March 2008)

The court found that satisfactory provision had been made for the welfare of the minor child, as the child was in the custody of the plaintiff and well cared for by her and her mother. The requirements of section 6(1)(a) of the Divorce Act were thus satisfied. Since no inquiry by the family advocate had yet been instituted, and the request for such an inquiry was contemplated, the court held that granting the divorce would not contravene section 6(1) of the Divorce Act. The court therefore granted the decree of divorce and requested the family advocate to investigate the issue of access to the minor child.

Citation
[2008] ZAGPHC 416
Parties
Plaintiff: Mayuree Rama Keshav; Defendant: Anilkumar Rama Kesnav
Court
High Courts - Gauteng
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
14 March 2008
Case Number
13336/04
Procedural Posture
Divorce Application / Final Judgment
Outcome
Decree of divorce granted; deed of settlement made order of court except for paragraph 2; family advocate requested to inquire into access to minor child.
Judges
Goldstein
Legal Topics
Divorce Decree, Custody and Access, Minor Child Welfare, Mediation in Divorce
Family and Children Divorce Decree Custody and Access Minor Child Welfare Mediation in Divorce

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 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mayuree Rama Keshav

Plaintiff

Anilkumar Rama Kesnav

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Divorce Application / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether satisfactory provision has been made for the welfare of the minor child as required by section 6(1)(a) of the Divorce Act.
  2. 2 Whether the court may grant a decree of divorce before a family advocate's inquiry into access to the child has been instituted.
  3. 3 Whether granting the divorce without a prior family advocate report contravenes section 6(1) of the Divorce Act.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that satisfactory provision had been made for the welfare of the minor child, as the child was in the custody of the plaintiff and well cared for by her and her mother. The requirements of section 6(1)(a) of the Divorce Act were thus satisfied. Since no inquiry by the family advocate had yet been instituted, and the request for such an inquiry was contemplated, the court held that granting the divorce would not contravene section 6(1) of the Divorce Act. The court therefore granted the decree of divorce and requested the family advocate to investigate the issue of access to the minor child.

Court Disposition

Decree of divorce granted; deed of settlement made order of court except for paragraph 2; family advocate requested to inquire into access to minor child.

Orders

  • A decree of divorce is granted.
  • The deed of settlement is made an order of court except for paragraph 2 thereof.