N v N (25172/17) [2017] ZAGPPHC 1278 (27 October 2017)

N v N (25172/17) [2017] ZAGPPHC 1278 (27 October 2017)

The court found that the applicant's application for postponement and to strike out allegations was without merit, as the disputed allegations were relevant to the relief sought and both parties agreed to the appointment of a psychologist and family advocate. The respondent's counterclaim for maintenance was justified by her lack of income and reliance on family support, and her move to Bloemfontein was motivated by the pursuit of employment. The respondent was entitled to maintenance pendente lite for herself and the minor children, as well as a contribution towards her legal costs, to ensure equality of arms in the pending divorce action. The court disregarded the disputed settlement...

Citation
[2017] ZAGPPHC 1278
Parties
Applicant: P N; Respondent: M M N
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
27 October 2017
Case Number
25172/17
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Rule 43 Interim Relief and Counterclaim
Outcome
Interim maintenance and access orders granted pendente lite; applications for postponement and strike out dismissed.
Judges
Shangisa
Legal Topics
Maintenance Pendente Lite, Parental Rights and Access, Contribution Towards Costs, Rule 43 Applications, Best Interests of Child
Family and Children Civil Procedure Maintenance Pendente Lite Parental Rights and Access Contribution Towards Costs Rule 43 Applications 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 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

P N

Applicant

M M N

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Rule 43 Interim Relief and Counterclaim

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant is entitled to interim access and contact rights to the minor children pending divorce proceedings.
  2. 2 Whether the respondent is entitled to maintenance pendente lite for herself and the minor children.
  3. 3 Whether the respondent is entitled to a contribution towards her legal costs.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant's application for postponement and to strike out allegations was without merit, as the disputed allegations were relevant to the relief sought and both parties agreed to the appointment of a psychologist and family advocate. The respondent's counterclaim for maintenance was justified by her lack of income and reliance on family support, and her move to Bloemfontein was motivated by the pursuit of employment. The respondent was entitled to maintenance pendente lite for herself and the minor children, as well as a contribution towards her legal costs, to ensure equality of arms in the pending divorce action. The court disregarded the disputed settlement...

Court Disposition

Interim maintenance and access orders granted pendente lite; applications for postponement and strike out dismissed.

Orders

  • The applicant is ordered to pay maintenance for the two minor children in the amount of R7,000.00 monthly, payable on or before the 1st day of each month.
  • The applicant is ordered to pay maintenance for the respondent in the amount of R7,000.00 monthly, payable on or before the 1st day of each month.