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
CL v ZL (Appeal) (A181/2024) [2024] ZAWCHC 325 (21 October 2024)
The High Court dismissed an appeal against a maintenance variation order, holding that no misdirection or irregularity was shown and the children’s best interests were properly served.
E.V.A v J.V.A (17286/2017) [2024] ZAWCHC 299 (18 September 2024)
The court found the respondent in contempt for non-payment of maintenance, held the order remained enforceable, and referred the matter to the Maintenance Court.
M.M.R v J.D.P and Others (6889/2021) [2023] ZALMPPHC 48 (17 July 2023)
The court held that the Maintenance Act only permits the attachment of pension benefits for arrear maintenance, not for future maintenance obligations. Since there is no maintenance order in place and the applicant seeks to secure future maintenance, the relief sought falls outside the scope of the statutory provisions. The applicant's financial difficulties and the first respondent's sporadic contributions do not justify an order for attachment of pension benefits in the absence of a maintenance order or evidence of arrear maintenance. The application is therefore premature and cannot succee…
Source excerpt
B v B (05/2030) [2005] ZAGPHC 358; 2005 (5) SA 228 (W) (5 May 2005)
The High Court does not have jurisdiction to vary a maintenance order made by the maintenance court except by way of appeal or review. The applicant's obligation to pay maintenance to the respondent, as set out in the original settlement agreement and subsequent court orders, remains in force. The maintenance court's variation affected only the quantum, not the duration, of the maintenance. There is no compelling evidence that the maintenance was intended to be rehabilitative or that circumstances justify limiting the duration of the applicant's obligation. The principle of pacta sunt servand…
Source excerpt
Cohen v Cohen (born Coleman) (010/2002) [2003] ZASCA 5; 2003 (3) SA 337 (SCA) (3 March 2003)
The court held that a maintenance court’s variation of the payment amount did not remove a dum casta clause from the original divorce order.
Purnell v Purnell (576/91) [1993] ZASCA 22; 1993 (2) SA 662 (AD); [1993] 2 All SA 153 (A) (11 March 1993)
The court held that a High Court could vary its own divorce maintenance order despite a later magistrate’s maintenance order. The appeal was dismissed.
Explore more
