M v M (17958/13) [2014] ZAGPJHC 391 (28 July 2014)

M v M (17958/13) [2014] ZAGPJHC 391 (28 July 2014)

The court found that the contact arrangements proposed by the respondent were reasonable and had been admitted by the applicant. Regarding maintenance, the court considered the financial means and expenses of both parties, noting that the applicant already covers significant costs for the children and the respondent is employed. The court determined that R1,500 per child per month is just and fair. The respondent failed to provide a sufficient factual basis for her claim for a contribution towards legal costs, and her claim was accordingly refused. Costs were ordered to be costs in the cause.

Citation
[2014] ZAGPJHC 391
Parties
Applicant: [M………….] [B………..] [E………..]; Respondent: [M…………] [P……….] [P………..]
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
28 July 2014
Case Number
17958/13
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Rule 43 Application Pending Divorce Trial
Outcome
Application succeeds in part and fails in part. Interim contact and maintenance orders granted; contribution to legal costs refused.
Judges
Francis
Legal Topics
Rule 43 Interim Relief, Child Maintenance, Contact Rights, Contribution to Legal Costs
Family and Children Civil Procedure Rule 43 Interim Relief Child Maintenance Contact Rights Contribution to Legal Costs

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 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

[M………….] [B………..] [E………..]

Applicant

[M…………] [P……….] [P………..]

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Rule 43 Application Pending Divorce Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 What interim contact arrangements should be made for the applicant with the minor children pending the divorce.
  2. 2 What is the appropriate amount of maintenance for each minor child under Rule 43.
  3. 3 Is the respondent entitled to a contribution towards her legal costs from the applicant.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the contact arrangements proposed by the respondent were reasonable and had been admitted by the applicant. Regarding maintenance, the court considered the financial means and expenses of both parties, noting that the applicant already covers significant costs for the children and the respondent is employed. The court determined that R1,500 per child per month is just and fair. The respondent failed to provide a sufficient factual basis for her claim for a contribution towards legal costs, and her claim was accordingly refused. Costs were ordered to be costs in the cause.

Court Disposition

Application succeeds in part and fails in part. Interim contact and maintenance orders granted; contribution to legal costs refused.

Orders

  • The respondent will have primary residence of the minor children.
  • The applicant will have reasonable contact with the minor children, including every alternate weekend from 15h00 on Fridays to 18h00 on Sundays, half of long school holidays alternating between parties, alternate short school holidays, on the applicant's birthday, on Father's Day, and on alternate public holidays...