About SAFLII
Databases
Search
Terms of Use
RSS Feeds
South Africa: North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
SAFLII
>>
Databases
>>
South Africa: North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
>>
2016
>>
[2016] ZAGPPHC 354
|
|
R.N.N v P.M.N (72325/2015) [2016] ZAGPPHC 354 (25 May 2016)
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 HIGH COURT OF
SOUTH AFRICA
GAUTENG DIVISION,
PRETORIA
CASE NO: 72325/2015
25/5/2016
[1] Reportable: Yes/
No
[2] Not of interest to
other judges: Yes/
No
[3] Revised.
25/5/16
Date
In the matter between
R N N
(BORN:
…) APPLICANT
(Identity No.: …)
and
P M
N RESPONDENT
(Identity No.: …)
JUDGMENT
1. The
applicant/plaintiff and the respondent/defendant ("the parties")
were married to each other in community of property
on 22 May 1986.
They have three adult children. The marriage still
subsists. The applicant
has instituted
divorce proceedings and she seeks interim maintenance
pendente
lite
in the total amount of
R86 000.00
per month.
2. The applicant is 54
years of age. She has never worked since she married the respondent.
This was at respondent's insistence.
The applicant lives in the
matrimonial home with the three adult children.
3. The respondent is a
businessman. He left the matrimonial home in February 2015 to
co-habit with a third party. However he continued
to contribute
financially to the needs of the household. The respondent also
allowed the plaintiff use of his Absa debit and petrol
card.
4. The financial support
ceased when the respondent received the divorce summons.
5. The applicant has set
out what she considers to be her reasonable monthly expenses which
the respondent ought to pay for. I do
not deal with each and every
one of these expenses in this regard. I however do not accept the
proposition that the respondent
must continue supporting his adult
children maintenance via the applicant. Put another way the
applicant's monthly expenses in
a rule 43 application ought not
include the support of the applicant's adult and able bodied
children. The respondent's children
can, separately seek the
respondent's financial assistance separate from the rule 43 process.
6. The respondent's
financial position is not seriously in dispute. He is in the
transport business. The respondent also is owner,
through Magogo
Passenger Services and MPS Tours CC of three fixed properties and
other valuable assets, namely three other properties
in Mpumalanga
Province.
7. The businesses also
own 35 luxury busses and a VW Amarok, Ford Ranger and Isuzu motor
vehicles.
8. The fixed properties
are worth approximately between R7 and R10 million. The busses are
worth approximately R17 000.00.
the business itself had an
annual turnover of approximately R6.8 million in the financial year
ending February 2014.
9. The respondent also
has a cheque account with a credit balance of R108 070.24, another
cheque account a Absa Bank with a credit
balance of R4 069 157.38, a
further cheque account at Absa Bank with a balance of R429 299.03,
another cheque account with a credit
balance of R2 149 829.50
10. The applicant also
seeks a contribution to her own legal costs in the divorce
proceedings.
11. The respondent raised
several
points
in limine
in his
affidavit. The first being that the applicant is not bona fide in her
pedente lite application for interim maintenance. He
accuses the
applicant of an abuse of the rule 43 process. The second being that
the applicant's allegations are vague and open
ended as are used as a
tactic.
12. The third point
relates to the children's support via a rule 43 process. The fourth
relates to mediation by the parties prior
to litigation. The fifth
relates to contribution towards legal costs with the sixth being that
the applicant has chosen to ignore
the Rules of Court.
13. The only valid point
in limine raised by the respondent relates to the applicant claiming
support for her adult and able bodied
children via the rule 43
process. The rest of the points in limine are without merit.
14. I find it
extraordinarily astonishing that the respondent denies that he has an
obligation to support the applicant of almost
30 years. The parties
are married in community of property. The applicant has not been
permitted to work by the respondent. She
has only a grade 10
qualification. Is it fair of the respondent to say that he is not
obliged to maintain the applicant? I think
not. Yes the respondent is
obliged to maintain his wife
pendente
lite.
15. The respondent's
financial position ex facie is solid. The applicant, as his wife has
some sense of how much the respondent
makes per month
I
per
annum. The fact that the respondent has the ability to maintain the
applicant does not in itself mean that he should pay out
of
proportion maintenance.
16. In the circumstances
I make the following Order:
17. The applicant be
entitled to occupy the common home situate at […] Colling
Street, Standerton, Mpumalanga ("the
matrimonial home").
18. The respondent is
ordered and directed to make monthly payments or continue to make
monthly payments of the following expenses
pertaining to the
matrimonial home:
(a).
All expenses in respect of water and electricity in the amount of
R2
000.00;
(b).
Municipal taxes in the amount of
R800.00
(c)
. Salary of domestic worker in the amount of
R2 600.00
(d).
Salary of gardener in the amount of
R2 200.00
(e).
Groceries in the amount of
R6 000.00
(f).
Fuel for applicant's motor vehicle in the amount of
R2 400.00
(g).
Cellphone in the amount of
R800.00
(h).
Clothes in the amount of
R2 000.00
(i)
. Gym fees in the amount of
R700.00
(j)
. Cosmetics in the amount of
R2 000.00
(k).
Motor vehicle maintenance in the amount of
R2 500.00
(I)
. Motor vehicle insurance in the amount of
R1 200.00
(m)
Entertainment in the amount of
R2 000.00
(n).
Maintenance of residence in the amount of
R3 000.00
(o).
Unforeseen expenses in the amount of
R2 000.00
(p).
Payment of all of the applicant's medical expenses within 5 days upon
presentation of invoices by the applicant.
(q).
Payment of all of the applicant's medical expenses on or upon
hospitalization in a private medical facility and other expenses
arising therefrom.
(r)
. All expenses in respect of the mortgage bond payment (if any) on
the matrimonial home;
19. The respondent is
ordered and directed to make a cash payment to the Applicant in the
sum of
R10 000.00
per month in respect of
the applicant's maintenance by no later than the first day of each
month commencing on or before 1 June
2016.
20. The Respondent is
ordered and directed to effect payment of the sum of
R
25
000.00
to the Applicant as a contribution to her legal costs;
21. The costs of this
application be the costs in the cause and the limitations of rule
43(7) & (8) be lifted.
TS MADIMA: AJ
ACTING JUDGE OF THE
HIGH COURT
On behalf of the
Applicant: Adv K T JORDT
Instructed by: Theuns
Hurter Attorneys
Hatfield
Pretoria
On behalf of the
Respondent: Adv A E Willcock
Instructed by:Jurgens
Bekker Attorneys
Bedfordview
Dates of Hearing: 9 May
2016
Date of Judgment: 24 May
2016