Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
Results update automatically as you type.
South Africa decisions
Decisions matching the current search
I.F v B.T.R.C (2021/16497) [2024] ZAGPJHC 1078 (16 September 2024)
Rule 43 application for interim spousal maintenance and bond payments. Cash maintenance was dismissed, but the respondent was ordered to pay the bond, arrears, and a costs contribution.
N.H.K v A.J.K (2022-053646) [2024] ZAGPPHC 141 (20 February 2024)
The court found that the applicant is financially destitute and wholly dependent on the respondent, who does not dispute his duty to maintain her but claims inability to pay the amounts sought. The evidence did not support the applicant's claim for relocation costs, but her entitlement to interim spousal maintenance and a contribution towards legal costs was established based on her personal circumstances, the history of the marriage, and the respondent's ongoing responsibility for household expenses. The court applied the principles from Taute v Taute, considering the parties' standard of li…
Source excerpt
M.D v M.D (2021/43212) [2023] ZAGPJHC 910; [2023] 2 All SA 736 (GJ) (2 February 2023)
The court found that the applicant is financially dependent on the respondent, who has not made full and frank disclosure of his financial affairs and continues to enjoy a high standard of living. The applicant demonstrated a need for interim maintenance and a contribution towards legal costs to ensure equality of arms in the pending divorce action. The respondent's conduct, including the reduction of the applicant's access to funds and lack of transparency, necessitated judicial intervention. The limitations imposed by Rule 43 on the filing of affidavits and supporting documents were found t…
Source excerpt
A.S.L v H.R.L (20482/21) [2021] ZAGPPHC 695 (13 October 2021)
The court found that the respondent earns a higher income than the applicant and, despite his continued responsibility for joint estate expenses, remains obliged to pay maintenance to the applicant pending the divorce. The relief sought by the applicant was deemed reasonable, temporary, and not intended for enrichment. The court balanced the need for maintenance and litigation equality, ordering maintenance and a contribution towards legal costs, while reinforcing the respondent's undertaking to maintain medical aid and insurance payments. The quantum of maintenance was reduced pro rata in li…
Source excerpt
C H v J H (4203/2020) [2020] ZAFSHC 235 (10 December 2020)
Rule 43 interim relief was granted, including monthly spousal maintenance, legal-cost contribution, relocation expenses, medical costs, and items listed in Annexure D.
Explore more
