V v V and Another (2962/2013) [2013] ZAFSHC 229 (28 November 2013)

V v V and Another (2962/2013) [2013] ZAFSHC 229 (28 November 2013)

The court found that the first respondent did not live together with Mr W[…] as husband and wife. Her explanation regarding her relationship and living arrangements was plausible and supported by evidence of her maintaining her own residence. The applicant failed to prove that the conditions for termination of maintenance under the settlement agreement were met. The applicant should have approached the maintenance court for termination of the maintenance order. The first respondent was entitled to enforce the maintenance order by warrant of execution, and her counter-application for enforcement and payment of arrears was justified. Costs were awarded against the applicant.

Citation
[2013] ZAFSHC 229
Parties
Applicant: G[…] F[…] V[…]; Respondent: L[…] V[…]; Respondent: B[…] V[…]
Court
Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
28 November 2013
Case Number
2962/2013
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Application and Counter Application for Declaratory and Enforcement Orders
Outcome
The application is dismissed with costs; the counter-application is upheld with costs.
Judges
L. M. Sesele
Legal Topics
Maintenance Order, Deed of Settlement, Warrant of Execution, Termination of Maintenance, Enforcement of Court Order
Family and Children Civil Procedure Maintenance Order Deed of Settlement Warrant of Execution Termination of Maintenance Enforcement of Court Order

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 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

G[…] F[…] V[…]

Applicant

L[…] V[…]

Respondent

B[…] V[…]

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Application and Counter Application for Declaratory and Enforcement Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the first respondent's right to maintenance under the settlement agreement has lapsed due to her alleged cohabitation with another man.
  2. 2 Whether the warrant of execution issued to enforce maintenance should be set aside or suspended.
  3. 3 Whether the applicant is obliged to comply with the maintenance order and pay arrear maintenance.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the first respondent did not live together with Mr W[…] as husband and wife. Her explanation regarding her relationship and living arrangements was plausible and supported by evidence of her maintaining her own residence. The applicant failed to prove that the conditions for termination of maintenance under the settlement agreement were met. The applicant should have approached the maintenance court for termination of the maintenance order. The first respondent was entitled to enforce the maintenance order by warrant of execution, and her counter-application for enforcement and payment of arrears was justified. Costs were awarded against the applicant.

Court Disposition

The application is dismissed with costs; the counter-application is upheld with costs.

Orders

  • The application is dismissed with costs.
  • The counter-application is upheld with costs.