R.L v J.F.D.L (Appeal) (A128/2024) [2025] ZAWCHC 585 (12 December 2025)

Case Note

R[...] L[...] v J[...] F[...] D[...] L[...] (A128/2024)
High Court of South Africa (Western Cape Division, Cape Town)
Judgment delivered: 12 December 2025

Reportability

This case is reportable due to its relevance in clarifying the issue of locus standi of a parent to bring maintenance claims on behalf of major dependent children post-divorce. It addresses the implications of a maintenance order incorporated into a divorce decree and substantively explores the duties of divorced parents towards their children, particularly when those children have reached the age of majority but remain economically dependent. Furthermore, the ruling sets important precedents regarding the enforceability of additional claims for maintenance and the interpretation of maintenance obligations under the Divorce Act, thereby providing guidance for future cases.

Cases Cited

1. Bursey v Bursey and Another 1999 (3) SA 33 (SCA)
2. Z v Z 2022 (5) SA 451 (SCA)
3. AJN v WLN [2023] ZAGPPHC 341
4. OV v CMV [2024] ZAGPPHC 1150
5. AF v MF 2019 (6) SA 422 (WCC)
6. DWT v MT and Another [2022] ZAWCHC 203
7. Coopers and Lybrand v Bryant 1995 (3) SA 761 (A)
8. Centre for Child Law v Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development [2009] ZACC 18
9. Smit v Smit 1980 (3) SA 1010 (O)

Legislation Cited

1. Divorce Act 70 of 1979
2. Maintenance Act 99 of 1998
3. Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, Section 28(2)

Rules of Court Cited

(No specific rules of court cited in the judgment)

HEADNOTE

Summary

The High Court reviewed an appeal concerning the refusal of a maintenance application after the divorce of the parties. The appellant, the mother, sought to enforce a previous maintenance order under a settlement agreement made during the divorce proceedings, claiming contempt against the father for non-payment of maintenance for their two adult dependent children. The court had to determine the mother's locus standi to pursue such claims post-divorce and whether the maintenance obligations outlined were enforceable through the High Court.

Key Issues

The pivotal issues addressed in this case included:

• The locus standi of a parent, post-divorce, to initiate maintenance claims on behalf of adult dependent children.
• The interpretation and enforceability of a maintenance order under the Divorce Act.
• The implications of arrear maintenance claims, contempt of court, and whether such claims are valid given the children's status as adults.

Held

The court held that the appellant did not have the necessary locus standi to bring the application for maintenance and contempt of court on behalf of the adult children. It affirmed that any claims for maintenance or contempt lay directly with the children themselves. As a result, the appeal was dismissed, with costs awarded to the respondent.

THE FACTS

The parties were divorced on 6 September 2019, and their divorce decree included a settlement agreement concerning maintenance for their children, who were both adults at that time. The two youngest children, Y[...] and R[...], were declared adult dependents, and maintenance obligations were specified within the settlement.

The appellant claimed that the respondent, the father, was in contempt of the maintenance order due to non-compliance, and sought several additional forms of maintenance and arrears. During divorce proceedings, it was evident that the children's educational and living expenses were shared between the parents, with the appellant believing that the respondent should shoulder a greater burden. However, the respondent argued that both parents equally shared the responsibility for maintenance and disputed the necessity of the amounts claimed.

THE ISSUES

The court was tasked with deciding the following legal questions:

• Did the appellant possess the legal standing to file for maintenance on behalf of the children after the divorce?
• How should the maintenance obligations under the divorce order be interpreted concerning the needs of the adult children?
• What constitutes contempt of court in the context of non-payment of maintenance under such circumstances?

ANALYSIS

The court's analysis focused on the locus standi issue, emphasizing that the maintenance obligations were originally set in the divorce order, which did not designate the appellant as the recipient of payments but rather aimed to provide for the children directly. Citing various precedents, the court acknowledged that while parents generally have a duty to maintain their children, once children reach adulthood, their right to claim maintenance becomes their own.

The court further interpreted the language of the maintenance clause, concluding that the terms did not stipulate that the respondent was solely responsible for payment, and it also did not obligate him to pay any arrears to the mother. The existing framework of the Divorce Act was vital in guiding the interpretation, solidifying that post-divorce, maintenance claims should be asserted by the adult children, not the parent.

The court also explored prior cases that gave insight into the evolving responsibilities in cases of adult dependents, determining that the obligations set forth could only be enforced by the adult children themselves. The court determined that even with the mother having borne expenses for her children, she could not unilaterally claim arrear maintenance in the absence of a direct obligation from the court order in her favor.

REMEDY

The court dismissed the appeal with costs, including two counsels. The judgment underlines the importance of clearly defined responsibilities in maintenance orders and emphasizes the necessary locus standi for enforcing those obligations.

LEGAL PRINCIPLES

The case elucidated several key legal principles, including:

1. Locus Standi: Only the children, upon reaching majority age, have standing to claim maintenance, reflecting their independent capacity to enforce their rights.

2. Maintenance Obligations: Obligations established under the Divorce Act extend beyond the attainment of majority but must be claimed directly by the dependent children once they are no longer under the direct guardianship of their parents.

3. Contempt Procedures: The enforcement of maintenance through contempt claims can only be pursued by parties duly authorized by existing court orders, which clarifies the procedural intricacies surrounding family law obligations post-divorce.

By firmly establishing these points, the High Court provided a much-needed clarification on the applicability of the relevant family law principles in South African jurisprudence.