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
A.E. v H.L. (2024/144979) [2025] ZAGPJHC 770 (8 August 2025)
In a Rule 43 divorce interim application, the High Court ordered child maintenance, limited contact, and expert family-preservation intervention after concerns about the applicant's alcohol use.
C.L.D.S. v F.S.D.S.S. (2024/092744) [2025] ZAGPJHC 726 (23 July 2025)
Rule 43 interim maintenance and costs were ordered pending divorce, with both parties allowed to remain in the common home.
P.C v C.C (2024-005569) [2025] ZAGPPHC 762 (22 July 2025)
An urgent application to permanently change a minor child’s primary residence was postponed sine die for further Family Advocate or expert investigation.
R.H.K v D.L.F (587/2023 ; 22313/2024) [2025] ZAWCHC 310 (19 June 2025)
The High Court found the respondent in contempt for non-compliance with an interim maintenance order, dismissed his Rule 43(6) variation application, and upheld Rule 30/30A objections.
S.Z.M v M.N.M (127136/2024) [2025] ZAGPPHC 614 (11 June 2025)
Rule 43 interim relief was granted in part: spousal maintenance and support for the child of the marriage were ordered, but claims for the two other children were dismissed.
A.W.F v K.S.R (052216/2024) [2025] ZAGPPHC 503 (16 May 2025)
Rule 43 interim relief in a pending divorce: the court ordered maintenance, residence, contact arrangements, and a curator ad litem for two minor children.
M.M.V.Z v R.T.D.M.V.Z (076638/2023) [2025] ZAGPPHC 262 (17 March 2025)
Rule 43 interim relief was refused in a pending divorce because the applicant’s evidence of need was not persuasive and her financial position had improved.
C.S v H.C.S (050529/2024) [2025] ZAGPPHC 276 (14 March 2025)
The court found that the applicant had exaggerated her expenses and understated the support provided by the respondent, constituting dishonorable conduct as censured in Du Preez v Du Preez. The respondent's ongoing financial contributions were deemed reasonable and sufficient for the applicant's needs. The application for interim maintenance and other relief was dismissed, except for the claim for contribution towards legal costs. The court held that, in line with the duty of support and the constitutional imperative of equality before the law, the respondent should contribute R75,000 towards…
Source excerpt
N.P.M v W.R (094519/2024) [2025] ZAGPPHC 185 (20 February 2025)
The court refused a postponement in a Rule 43 matter and ordered interim maintenance, a vehicle, and a costs contribution after finding the request was not bona fide.
H.A v N.A (144907/2024) [2025] ZAGPPHC 121 (13 February 2025)
The High Court held that a Rule 43 application was competent despite a prior Talaaq, and dismissed the respondent’s jurisdictional point in limine.
Explore more
