S.V.A (Born D) v F.V.A (11183/2018) [2018] ZAGPPHC 506 (11 May 2018)

S.V.A (Born D) v F.V.A (11183/2018) [2018] ZAGPPHC 506 (11 May 2018)

The court found that the applicant's claim for maintenance for the minor children was justified, but the amount sought was excessive given the respondent's financial capacity. The respondent was ordered to pay R15,000 per month for both children, reflecting a fair and reasonable sum. The applicant's claim for spousal maintenance was denied, as she was living with Mr Van Rensburg, who was supporting her, and public policy precludes double support. The claim for relocation costs was dismissed, as Rule 43 does not permit lump sum awards for such expenses. The court ordered the respondent to make available the items listed in annexure 'FA5' as agreed by the parties. Regarding legal costs, the...

Citation
[2018] ZAGPPHC 506
Parties
Applicant: S V A (Born D); Respondent: F V A
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
11 May 2018
Case Number
11183/2018
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Rule 43 Interim Relief Application
Outcome
Application granted in part; maintenance for minor children and contribution to legal costs ordered; spousal maintenance and relocation costs refused.
Judges
Mosopa
Legal Topics
Rule 43 Interim Relief, Maintenance Pendente Lite, Spousal Maintenance, Contribution to Legal Costs, Relocation Expenses
Family and Children Civil Procedure Rule 43 Interim Relief Maintenance Pendente Lite Spousal Maintenance Contribution to Legal Costs Relocation Expenses

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 6 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

S V A (Born D)

Applicant

F V A

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Rule 43 Interim Relief Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent should pay interim maintenance for the minor children.
  2. 2 Whether the respondent should pay interim spousal maintenance to the applicant.
  3. 3 Whether the respondent should contribute to the applicant's relocation costs.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant's claim for maintenance for the minor children was justified, but the amount sought was excessive given the respondent's financial capacity. The respondent was ordered to pay R15,000 per month for both children, reflecting a fair and reasonable sum. The applicant's claim for spousal maintenance was denied, as she was living with Mr Van Rensburg, who was supporting her, and public policy precludes double support. The claim for relocation costs was dismissed, as Rule 43 does not permit lump sum awards for such expenses. The court ordered the respondent to make available the items listed in annexure 'FA5' as agreed by the parties. Regarding legal costs, the...

Court Disposition

Application granted in part; maintenance for minor children and contribution to legal costs ordered; spousal maintenance and relocation costs refused.

Orders

  • Respondent to pay R15,000 per month towards maintenance of the minor children, payable immediately and thereafter on or before the 1st day of each month pendente lite.
  • Respondent to make available to the applicant the items listed in annexure 'FA5' of the applicant's founding affidavit immediately after this order.