About SAFLII
Databases
Search
Terms of Use
RSS Feeds
South Africa: South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
SAFLII
>>
Databases
>>
South Africa: South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
>>
2013
>>
[2013] ZAGPJHC 213
|
|
M v M (04747/2013) [2013] ZAGPJHC 213 (20 August 2013)
SAFLII
Note:
Certain
personal/private details of parties or witnesses have been
redacted from this document in compliance with the law
and
SAFLII
Policy
REPUBLIC
OF SOUTH AFRICA
IN THE SOUTH GAUTENG HIGH COURT
JOHANNESBURG
CASE NO: 04747/2013
In the matter between:
M,
K L
APPLICANT
and
M,
D J
RESPONDENT
J U D G M E N T
TSHABALALA, J
:
[1] This is an application in
terms of Rule 43 in terms whereof the applicant seeks maintenance for
herself and two minor
children, including the following relief:
1.
The
respondent retains the applicant and minor children in his medical
aid scheme and be liable for the payment of premiums.
2.
The
respondent continue paying for the monthly bond instalments, crèche,
swimming lessons for the minor son, security, telephone
and the
applicant’s life policy with Discovery.
3.
The
respondent make a contribution of R4 000,00 towards the applicant’s
legal costs.
[2] The parties are both
employed live apart and have two minor children. The children
are aged seven years and 4 years
respectively.
[3] The applicant earns a net
salary of R19 601, 86 and the respondent’s net salary is R35
495,66.
[4] According to the applicant,
the respondent has continued paying for the following expenses:
bond instalment (R4
276); medical aid for himself, the applicant and
the two minors (R795); crèche for the 4 year old (R2 642);
swimming lessons
for the 7 year old (R370); security (R465);
telephone (R250); applicant’s life policy (R390) and school
fees for the 7 year
old (R4 860). The total amount paid for these
items is R14 048,00.
[5] According to the respondent
his expenses excluding those admitted by the applicant include the
following: car repayment
(R4 331); retirement annuity (R2 918);
gym membership (R206); car insurance (R1 328); life insurance for
both parties (R1 256);
DSTV (R170); travelling expenses for 80
km per day to go to work (R 3000). The total hereof is R13
039,00.
[6] The applicant has indicated
that she need R4 000,00 for her and the children’s grocery
which is for twenty days
as the respondent has the children on the
remaining ten days. According to the respondent he needs R2 500,00
for his and the children’s
groceries for ten to twelve days
when the children are with him.
[7] The respondent has
indicated that he pays R8 000,00 for his accommodation for rental and
R1 269,00 for municipality rates.
[8] On behalf of both parties,
it was argued that certain items listed in their respective expenses
were excessive.
[9] Although agreeable to this
fact, I am, however, of the view that certain facts militate against
disallowing or reducing
them. Rental for an individual person for R8
000,00 does appear to be excessive. However, taking into
consideration that the respondent
has the children with him for ten
to twelve days per month, that the rented property has three bedrooms
and is fully furnished,
this amount is not so unreasonable for such a
property that it can be said to be a luxurious expenditure.
Having said this,
I am, however, of the view that he can scale down
to accommodation of at least R7 000,00 thereby saving a R1 000,00.
[10] The applicant on the other
hand can save by reducing certain expenses such as cigarettes which
is a luxury, personal
entertainment, household cleaning, which she
can incorporate in the groceries, birthday parties and gifts.
[11] The respondent is already
paying R14 048,00 towards the maintenance of the applicant and the
minor children which constitutes
40% of his income. This amount
exceeds what the applicant has claimed for the maintenance of the
children viz R12 552,44.
[12] In the list of expenses
none has added consumables such as bread and milk and pocket money
for the children which the
savings I have alluded to above will
cover.
[13] I am accordingly of the
view that over and above what the respondent is paying for, he can
afford to pay at least R1
000,00 cash component of maintenance for
the children and the appellant can augment the balance with her
savings.
[14] The respondent will need
more time to either find a cheaper accommodation or adjust his living
standard to raise the
R1 000,00 that I have indicated he can save.
[15] Taking into consideration
the respective earnings of both parties, their expenses and the fact
that, I have not been
alerted of any issue which renders the
settlement of the divorce action between the parties, incapable of
attaining, I am satisfied
that no case has been made out for a costs
contribution.
[16] In the premises, I make an
order in terms of the draft marked “7” dated today.
N D
TSHABALALA
JUDGE OF
THE SOUTH GAUTENG
HIGH
COURT, JOHANNESBURG
Attorneys for Applicant : W.S.
Britz – Schalk Britz Inc.
10 West Street,
Benoni
Tel. (011)
422-4576
c/o M.T. De Bruin
Attorneys
113 Beyers Naude
Drive
Northcliff
Ref. Mrs De
Bruyn/Mr Britz
Council for Applicant : Unknown
Attorneys for Respondent :
Alexander Montano Attorneys
Ground Floor,
President Place,
1 Hood Avenue
Rosebank
Johannesburg
Ref. James Aveyard
Council for Respondent : A. Scott
Date of Judgement : 20 August
2013