P.L v B.L (43989/10) [2013] ZAGPPHC 253 (16 August 2013)

P.L v B.L (43989/10) [2013] ZAGPPHC 253 (16 August 2013)

The court found that the applicant failed to establish a material change in circumstances justifying the revocation of maintenance pendente lite. The respondent's cohabitation with another man does not, in itself, bar her from claiming maintenance, as confirmed by the Supreme Court of Appeal in EH v SH. The applicant did not prove that the respondent is being maintained by her partner, and the duty of support remains until divorce. The respondent's request for increased maintenance was dismissed as she failed to demonstrate a need for further support, given the substantial contributions already made by the applicant. However, the respondent was entitled to a contribution towards her legal...

Citation
[2013] ZAGPPHC 253
Parties
Applicant: P L; Respondent: B L
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
16 August 2013
Case Number
43989/10
Procedural Posture
Rule 43 Application / Rule 43(6) Application to Amend Maintenance Order; Counterclaim for Increased Maintenance and Contribution to Legal Costs
Outcome
Application to revoke maintenance dismissed; respondent's counterclaim for increased maintenance dismissed; respondent awarded contribution towards legal costs.
Judges
Baqwa
Legal Topics
Maintenance Pendente Lite, Rule 43 Applications, Contribution Towards Legal Costs, Accrual System, Duty of Support
Family and Children Civil Procedure Maintenance Pendente Lite Rule 43 Applications Contribution Towards Legal Costs Accrual System Duty of Support

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 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 10
Sign in to unlock

Parties

P L

Applicant

B L

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Rule 43 Application / Rule 43(6) Application to Amend Maintenance Order; Counterclaim for Increased Maintenance and Contribution to Legal Costs

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant has established a material change in circumstances justifying the revocation of maintenance pendente lite under Rule 43(6).
  2. 2 Whether the respondent is entitled to an increase in maintenance for herself and the parties' son.
  3. 3 Whether the respondent is entitled to a contribution towards her legal costs.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant failed to establish a material change in circumstances justifying the revocation of maintenance pendente lite. The respondent's cohabitation with another man does not, in itself, bar her from claiming maintenance, as confirmed by the Supreme Court of Appeal in EH v SH. The applicant did not prove that the respondent is being maintained by her partner, and the duty of support remains until divorce. The respondent's request for increased maintenance was dismissed as she failed to demonstrate a need for further support, given the substantial contributions already made by the applicant. However, the respondent was entitled to a contribution towards her legal...

Court Disposition

Application to revoke maintenance dismissed; respondent's counterclaim for increased maintenance dismissed; respondent awarded contribution towards legal costs.

Orders

  • The applicant's application to revoke payment of maintenance in terms of Rule 43(6) is dismissed.
  • The applicant must comply with the settlement agreement reached in terms of the Rule 43 application and continue payments as per the agreement.