S v S (5039/2014) [2015] ZAFSHC 108 (18 June 2015)

S v S (5039/2014) [2015] ZAFSHC 108 (18 June 2015)

The court found that the respondent failed to provide sufficient financial disclosure, leaving the court to infer that he has undisclosed sources of income. The applicant's claimed expenses were found to be excessive, particularly as she was no longer responsible for the bond or the maintenance of the child residing with the respondent. The court held that the applicant is not entitled to maintenance for herself but is entitled to maintenance for the minor child living with her, as the respondent has the means to provide for both children. The respondent is ordered to pay for specific expenses related to the minor child and to facilitate contact between the applicant and the child. Costs...

Citation
[2015] ZAFSHC 108
Parties
Applicant: A. S.; Respondent: R.C.S.
Court
Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
18 June 2015
Case Number
5039/2014
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Rule 43 Interim Maintenance Application Pending Divorce
Outcome
Application for maintenance for the applicant dismissed; maintenance for the minor child granted.
Judges
Mocumie
Legal Topics
Maintenance Pendente Lite, Parental Responsibilities and Rights, Rule 43 Applications, Best Interests of Child
Family and Children Civil Procedure Maintenance Pendente Lite Parental Responsibilities and Rights 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 4 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

A. S.

Applicant

R.C.S.

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Rule 43 Interim Maintenance Application Pending Divorce

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant is entitled to interim maintenance for herself and the minor child pending divorce.
  2. 2 Whether the respondent has disclosed sufficient financial information to determine his ability to pay maintenance.
  3. 3 Whether the applicant's claimed expenses are justified and reasonable.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the respondent failed to provide sufficient financial disclosure, leaving the court to infer that he has undisclosed sources of income. The applicant's claimed expenses were found to be excessive, particularly as she was no longer responsible for the bond or the maintenance of the child residing with the respondent. The court held that the applicant is not entitled to maintenance for herself but is entitled to maintenance for the minor child living with her, as the respondent has the means to provide for both children. The respondent is ordered to pay for specific expenses related to the minor child and to facilitate contact between the applicant and the child. Costs...

Court Disposition

Application for maintenance for the applicant dismissed; maintenance for the minor child granted.

Orders

  • The application for maintenance in respect of the applicant is dismissed.
  • The respondent is ordered to pay maintenance in respect of the minor child, J. S., with effect from 30 June 2015.