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
>>
2013
>>
[2013] ZAGPPHC 531
|
|
V v V (72506/2012) [2013] ZAGPPHC 531 (1 March 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
IN
THE NORTH GAUTENG HIGH COURT, PRETORIA
(REPUBLIC
OF SOUTH AFRICA)
CASE
NO: 72506/2012
DATE:
1/3/2013
In
the matter between:
V[…]
............................................................................................................................................
Applicant
and
V[…]
........................................................................................................................................
Respondent
JUDGMENT
MAKHUBELE
AJ
INTRODUCTION
1.
The applicant and respondent married in community of property on 11
December 1999. Two minor children, a boy of eight (8) and
a girl of
four (4) years respectively were born out of the union. The
respondent left the common household on 21 October 2012.
The minor
children are in the custody of the applicant.
2.
In this application, applicant seeks an order in terms of Rule 43 of
the Uniform Rules of Court in the following terms:
2.1
That the permanent primary residence of the minor children born
between the parties be awarded to her, subject to the respondent’s
right of limited contact which she describes as follows:
(a)
Respondent is only entitled to visit the children under the
supervision of applicant or any person designated by her every
alternative Saturday from 13:00 to 16:00 as well as every Wednesday
from 18:00 to 20:00.
(b)
Respondent is entitled to visit the children on his and their
birthdays, Fathers Day for two hours subject to what they may
agree
upon.
(c)
Respondent is entitled to reasonable telephone contact with the minor
children every alternative day between 18:30 and 19:00.
(d)
The aforementioned contact should not unreasonably interfere with the
minor children’ scholastic, religious and or cultural
activities.
2.2
That any one of the parties may approach the court for variation of
the rights of access and contact with the minor children
after the
Family Advocate has made the recommendations. The parties may, if
necessary file additional affidavits in this regard.
2.3
An order that applicant continue with the registration of the minor
children as beneficiaries in her medical aid, but that the
respondent
should pay any shortfall that is not covered by the medical aid. Any
payments made by applicant should be refunded by
the respondent
within three (3) days of presentation of an invoice.
2.4
That the respondent should be responsible for any expenses incurred
by the applicant with regard to crèche, preschool,
primary and
after care needs of the minor children. This would include school
uniforms, school necessities as well as extra mural
activities.
2.5
That the respondent should continue to pay for the parties’ and
children’ insurance and policies as they stand on
October 2011.
2.6
That the respondent continue to pay for the following monthly
expenses:
2.6.1
Half of the mortgage bond: R1 263.21 +_
2.6.2
City of Tshwane service fees for their former common
household
R2 887.45+_
2.6.3
Groceries:
R 2 500.00
2.6.4
Bread, milk and vegetables R1 240.00
2.6.5
Half of maid’s salary
R600.00
2.6.6
Gardener
R480.00
2.6.7
Swimming pool maintenance: R200.00
2.7
In addition to these payments, the respondent should pay a monthly
amount of R5 516.81 to applicant and the minor children
on or before
the 1
st
day of each subsequent month.
2.8
That the respondent pays an amount of R8000.00 as contribution to
applicant’s legal costs in monthly installments of R500.00
2.9
Costs of this application in the cause, respondent to pay costs only
if he opposes the relief sought.
3.
The application is opposed by the respondent, who has filed a
thirty two (32) page answering affidavit and also confirmatory
affidavits by his sisters and a friend. Compared to the
applicant’s thirteen (13) pages founding affidavit and ten
(10)
pages annexures, the respondent’s papers may be considered
excessive and not in the spirit of Rule 43 applications.
However,
I am inclined to condone respondent’s bulky papers in view of
the fact that applicant made certain allegations regarding
his
fitness to have custody (albeit temporary) of the minor children. In
fact, both parties made accusations and counter-accusations
of
emotional instability against each other.
The
parties accuse each another of shouting and screaming in
front of the children. The bulk of the affidavits dealt
with their
perceived suitability and unsuitability of the other party to take
care of the children.
3.1
Respondent has already issued divorce summons under case number
72192/12. The relief sought include amongst others access to
the
children on alternative weekends, school vacations and Christmas and
to take them every alternative weekend from Friday at
17:00 to Sunday
at 17:00.
4.
I was informed from the bar by applicant’s counsel that the
issue of primary residence and access for the children was
resolved
and settled before the hearing and that the only outstanding issue in
this regard is the times within which and how the
respondent should
be allowed to have access to the children.
5.
I was also informed from the bar that applicant had
offered respondent to have the minor children one night weekend
sleep over at his house subject to their attending normal
Sunday School. The boy is a Sunday School leader. The only remaining
dispute relates to the time for picking up and bringing the children
back to the applicant. Applicant wants the children to be
picked up
at 13:00 on Friday and returned at 17:00 on Sunday.
6.
The respondent’s counsel on the other hand , insisted (despite
the alleged agreement) that the children should be picked
up every
alternative weekend at 17:00 on Friday and brought back in the
afternoon on Sunday.
7.
Although I was informed from the bar by applicant’s
counsel that the remaining issue for decision was maintenance,
it
appears from submissions made on behalf of the respondent that there
is no agreement with regard to whether the children
should spend the
entire weekend (Friday to Sunday) with the respondent or only one
night (Saturday to Sunday).
EARNING
CAPACITIES
8.
Applicant is employed by the Department of Labour and earns a net
income of R7 813. According to information in her salary advice,
the
following deductions are made:
8.1
Tax
R1076.26
8.2
GEPF
R873.82
8.3
GEMS
R1449.00
8.4
Nedbank Limited
R1263.21
8.5
PSA
R70.27
8.6
PSCBC
R0.50
8.7
GPSSBC
R4.
9.
Respondent is employed at Barlow World, Toyota in Menlyn. Applicant
requested and obtained copies of his salary advices for the
period
between 30 June 2012 and 31 January 2013. It appears from a
scrutiny of these documents that his basic salary increased
from R19
500.00 (June, July, August and September 2012) to R21 150.00 (October
2012 to January 2013). Respondent’s
basic salary is
supplemented by overtime pay of a maximum of R6000.00 (four months in
the review period) and a minimum of R3904.62
(December 2012). His
deductions are as follows:
9.1
Tax:
R6277.55
9.2
UIF
R148.72
9.3
Union
R195.24
9.4
IC levy
R9.40
9.5
Add/hol/pay R293.76
9.6
Mot Indust Prov R1464.23
9.7
GST Div tax
R46.45
10.
Respondent’s average take-home salary (net) since the increase
in his basic salary is R22 000.00 . He admitted that he
does extra
private work sometimes, but failed to mention how much he gets as
payment in that regard. The onus was on him to take
the court into
his confidence.
NEEDS
AND EXPENSES
Applicant
11.
According to the applicant, respondent previously made certain
payments when they were still living together. She wants
him to
continue with the payments. These are:
11.1
half mortgage bond:
R1 263.21
11.2
City of Tshwane
R2 887.45
11.3
Groceries:
R2 500.00
11.4
Bread, milk and vegetables: R1 240.00
11.5
Maid
R600.00
11.6
Gardener
R480.00
11.7
Swimming pool maintenance R200.00
11.8
Primary school fees
R420.00
11.9
After care
R450.00
11.10
Creche
R780.00
11.11
Insurance and Policies
unknown
11.12
Medical excess fees
unknown
12.
Except for the unknown amounts, it was submitted on behalf of the
applicant that respondent paid a total amount of R10 820.00
for the
common household needs and that he should be ordered to continue to
make these payments.
13.
Applicant’s monthly expenses amount to R13 330.75 and comprise
of the following:
13.1
Half bond:
R1 263.21
13.2
Food, groceries, vegetables, bread and milk
R800.00
13.3
Meat and fish
R400.00
13.4
Half of maid’s salary
R675.00
13.5
Vodacom
R850.00
13.6
Petrol
R1 300.00
13.7
Haircare for applicant
R450.00
13.8
Entertainment, eating out and outings
R650.00
13.9
Children’ hair cut
R140.00
13.10
Personal grooming and care
R350.00
13.11
Applicant’s Vitamins and non-prescription medication
R550.00
13.12
Children’ multivitamins
R127.00
13.13
Children’ carry money
R100.00
13.14
School photos (R250.00 once off p/year) R20.83
13.15
Security forms (per
year)
R12.50
13.16
Sport fees and clothes
R200.00
13.17
Nail care
R120.00
13.18
Applicant’s clothes and shoes
R450.00
13.19
Children’ shoes and clothes
R600.00
13.20
Gym at work
R200.00
13.21Gym
clothes and tekkies
R150.00
13.22
Parking and car wash at work
R300.00
13.23
Dog food
R440.00
13.24
Car licence (R450 p/year)
R37.50
13.25
UIF for maid
R27.00
13.26
UIF for gardener (R115.20 p/year)
R9.60
13.27
Provision for Christmas present for children’ birthdays and
Christmas
R 350.00
13.28
Funeral policy
R200.00
13.29
Life policy
R400.00
13.30
Motor service and maintenance
(
R3500 p/year, including tyres)
R292.00
13.31
Provision for vacation( accommodation,
petrol
and toll fees)
R350.00
13.32
Bank costs on savings account
R153.65
13.33
Bank costs on moneybuilder
R23.35
13.34
Huisgenoot
R18.00
13.35
Vet
R110.00
13.36
TV licence per year R 250.00
R20.83
13.37
Game outstanding amount RR8335.97
R409.28
13.38
Psychologist (balance R2700.00)
R350.00
13.39
Chronic medication excess fees
R431.00
14.
Applicant maintains that she has a shortfall (between her salary and
expenses) of R5 516.61 and that the respondent should
be
ordered to pay her this amount. This amount is in addition to
the payments that respondent is required to continue to
make (R10
880.00 and the cost of a insurance and medical excess fees).
The
total monetary value (excluding the insurance and medical excess
fees) of respondent’s demand for contribution towards
the
maintenance of applicant and the children will thus be an amount of
R16 336.61.
15.
In his answering affidavit, respondent maintains (correctly so)
that the amount of R1 263.21 should be taken off applicant’s
list of expenses because it is deducted from her basic salary. Her
total expenses will then be R12 067.54.
16.
Respondent also criticizes applicant’s expenses on the basis
that her claim is “
gelaai”
and in this regard he
disputed applicant’s allegations that she spends R350.00 per
month on personal grooming, R450.00 on
her hair or that children’
hair are cut on a monthly basis at a cost of R140.00.
He
also challenges the cost of photos and
borgvorms,
money spent
on sport clothes for the children, clothes and shoes and the funeral
policy which applicant alleges she pays R200.00
per month for. He
also indicated that he has made an offer to maintain applicant’s
motor vehicle.
17.
After discounting the expenses which he considers loaded ( a total of
R1973.33 ) and half the bond amount that is already
deducted in
applicant’s basic salary) respondent contends that in his
view, the monthly needs of the children amount
to R9 958.93.
18.
I have to agree with applicant’s counsel that the respondent’s
manner of opposition is petty and inappropriate.
The parties have
been married since 1999 and lived together in a common
household until respondent moved out in October 2012.
Respondent
should , at least, have provided the court with exact information
with regard to his wife’s and children’s
monthly
expenses. He knows their life style. It does not help to simply state
that applicant does not spend so much on a particular
need. If he
knows that the children do not cut their hair for a specified amount
at the specified intervals, he should state what
he knows the
position to be, at least until up to the time he left the
common household.
In
his answering affidavit, respondent simply states, amongst other
things that some of applicant’s expenses are luxuries.
He
mentions things like gym at work, entertainment, eating out and
outings, gym clothes and tekkies, parking at work and car wash
as
well as Huisgenoot. The question is whether these expenses were there
when they were still living together or they were recently
acquired.
If
it is a lifestyle that applicant was accustomed to before the
separation, respondent cannot be heard to complain. On the other
hand, if both of them cannot afford such a lifestyle, then there is
no reason why it should be maintained, at a debt.
19.
In the absence of a meaningful opposition on the part of the
respondent, the court is left to its own resources to consider
whether applicant’s expenses and needs are reasonable. In this
regard, I will have to balance the parties’ respective
means,
needs and expenses to reach an objective amount which applicant
should contribute towards the maintenance of his children.
19.1
Applicant’s expenses in as far as they relate to the children
are in my view reasonable and appear to be normal family
expenses.
Her claim is not broken down into separate amounts for children and
her own, but she seeks a global amount to supplement
what she refers
to as a shortfall.
19.2
Consequently, the only question is whether the respondent is in a
position (financially) to meet the demand. Most of the expenses
( for
example, holidays, savings for Christmas, gifts) are capable of being
curtailed, at least until the issues are fully ventilated
in the
divorce or maintenance court.
Respondent
20.
His monthly expenses are listed in his answering affidavit as follows
20.1
House rent
R5 500.00
20.2
Water and lights
R1 200.00
20.3
Petrol
R3 000.00
20.4
50% share of mortgage bond R1 263.00
20.5
Groceries
R2 000.00
20.6
Insurance
R1 300.00
20.7
Standard Bank Loan
R 500.00
20.8
Incapacity insurance
R250.00
20.9
Vodacom
R800.00
20.10
Clothes, shoes and haircut R400.00
20.11
Credit card
R400.00
20.12
Solidarity
R120.00
20.13
Toll fees
R308.00
20.14
Gardener
R600.00
20.15
Bakkie maintenance
R120.00
TOTAL
R17 761.00
21.
According to respondent, his expenses exceed his earnings by R6
000.00 (In his affidavit his salary was indicated as R19 000,
however, it emerged during the hearing as I have indicated above that
his net income is an average of R22 000.00. Therefore, following
his
logic of income over expenditure, his shortfall will be R3 000. 00)
22.
Applicant’s counsel argued that the respondent’s
expenses are too excessive for one person. It is common
cause
that respondent shares a house or household with his girlfriend
and her children. As a result, respondent’s counsel
conceded
(correctly so) that in some areas the expenses should be adjusted
accordingly. There was no clear consensus on the amount
and nature of
expenses to be adjusted, however, taking a roust approach, I am of
the view that the only expenses that are indeed
excessive are
payments for accommodation, water and lights, petrol and
groceries. This is because he is sharing a house
with another woman
and her children. The remaining expenses appear to be normal payments
he could have incurred whether irrespective
of which woman he was
staying with. Respondent’s expenses that need to be adjusted
are:
22.1
Accommodation (half of R6500 and R700 (lease agreement handed in
)
R3 600.00
22.2
Water and lights
R600.00
22.3
Petrol
R1 500.00
22.4
Groceries
R1500.00
Total
adjustments:
R7 200.00
TOTAL after
adjustment:
R10 561.00
23.
In her founding affidavit, applicant indicated that respondent paid
the expenses which I have already referred to and that he
also paid
for unforeseen expenses such as licences, entertainment, eating out,
additional school necessities, school clothes and
activities for the
minor children. Furthermore, applicant alleged that respondent gave
her his credit card to make certain payments,
but that he has since
stopped this. Respondent did not specifically address these
allegations in his answering affidavit, save
to state that he has
made an offer to pay applicant an amount R9 958. 93 per month that
is made up as follows:
23.1
R50% bond
R1 263.21
23.2
50% land levy
R1 443.72
23.3
R1 000 per child
R2 000.00
23.4
Primary school fees
R420.00
23.5
After care fees
R450.00
23.6
Creche
R780.00
23.7
Bond insurance
R600.00
23.8
waiver of interest in market
value
of rental income
R3000.00
24.
During argument, applicant’s counsel indicated that the offer
with regard to item 23.8 is in theory only because the income
respondent refers to a fictional and refers to the house that
is occupied by applicant and the children. In practical terms,
respondent regards the house as having been rented to applicant, and
that there should be rental income of R6 000. He gives up
his share
and calculate it as part of maintenance for the children and
applicant. Respondent’s offer, in real terms is
R6
958.93.
25.
Save for the cost of swimming pool maintenance, maid and
gardener’s salaries and payment of medical excess fees,
the
items that respondent offers to pay are the same as what applicant
alleges to be previous payments made by the respondent when
they were
still living under the same roof.
26.
I am prepared to accept that indeed respondent made previous payments
of R10 880.00 (excluding policies and medical excess fees)
as alleged
by the applicant.
CONTRIBUTION
TOWARDS LEGAL COSTS
27.
Applicant claims an amount of R8 000 .00 as contribution to her legal
costs in what she refers to as a “
bestrede
egskeidingsaksie”.
She avers that respondent refuses to
make a reasonable contribution towards her and their children’
maintenance and that
she will, of necessity be obliged to claim for
maintenance.
28.
I have already indicated that the parties have reached a settlement
with regard to the primary residence and care, rights of
access and
contact for the respondent. In their affidavits, they seem to agree
that the children should be assessed and evaluated
by experts and
that the Family Advocate will conduct an investigation. There is also
consensus that they will defer to the opinion
and recommendations of
the experts. In their respective affidavits, both parties acknowledge
that the children, more especially
the boy, has some behavioral
challenges. Applicant contends that the problems were caused by their
separation, whereas respondent’s
argument is that the boy’s
problems were pre-existing.
Wherever
the fault lies, both parties are concerned about their children’s
well-being. They also acknowledge that a parenting
plan and training
is essential.
28.1
Applicant must show that if she is the plaintiff in the main action,
that she has a prima facie case, if she is
a defendant, that she is
defending in good faith.
The
amount for contribution to legal costs is determined by court’s
view of the amount necessary for applicant adequately
to put her case
before court.
See:
Van Rippen v Van Rippen
1949 (4) SA 634
© at 639 – 40.
See
also: Dodo v Dodo
1990 (2) SA 77
(W) AT 98F
28.2
Applicant is not entitled to all her anticipated costs, even though
the respondent can well afford to pay them,
but only a substantial
contribution towards them
.
See:
Van Rippen v Van Rippen at 640-1
(supra)
and Dodo 98F
(supra)
28.3
Applicant must establish that she has insufficient means of her own
to pay for legal costs and that the amount she seeks is
reasonably
necessary to pursue her defence.
Nicholson
v Nicholson
1998 (1) SA 48
??? AT 50C where Wunsh J said:
‘
The
question to be considered is what the applicant needs for reasonable
proceedings. The cases were reviewed in Dodo v Dodo
1990 (2) SA 77
(W). The applicant is entitled, if the respondent has the means and
she does not have them, to be placed in he position adequately
to
present her case, relevant factors being the scale on which the
respondent is litigating and the scale on which the applicant
intends
litigating (I would have qualified this by reference to what is
reasonable having regard to what is involved in the case),
with due
regard being had to the respondent’s financial position.”
28.4
Litigation can be luxurious or economical and it is commensurate with
the means of the parties. When litigating against a rich
man who
employs senior and junior counsel, Willamson J said she is entitled
to litigate upon somewhat the same sort of scale as
that upon which
he can be expected to litigate.
Glazer v Glaze 1959 (3) 928 (W) at
A-C
29.
I have already mentioned that respondent did not make a (full)
disclosure with regard to the extra income from the private work
he
often renders. Rules of discovery should suffice in this regard.
There is no need for extensive investigations.
30.
Respondent did not make an offer with regard to legal costs. It was
argued on his behalf that the enders he made for payment
of
maintenance in November and December 2012 which applicant did not
accept disentitle her to a contribution towards legal costs.
The
issue here is costs in the divorce action not the present
proceedings.
31.
On the other hand, applicant did not lay a basis for the amount she
claims for legal costs. Both parties have expressed their
willingness
to settle the dispute in their respective affidavits and blame each
other for the delays.
32.
Although I am of the view that respondent should contribute towards
applicant’s costs in the divorce action, the amount
claimed by
applicant is excessive.
QUANTUM
OF MAINTENANCE
32.
Applicant is entitled to reasonable maintenance pendent elite for
herself and the children. The quantum thereof depends upon
the
marital standard of living of the parties, the applicant’s
actual and reasonable requirements and the capacity of the
respondent
to meet such requirements which are normally met from income although
in some circumstances inroads on capital may be
justified
Taute
v Taute
1974 (2) SA 675
(e) at 676E
33.
More weight will be attached to the affidavit of a respondent who
evinces a willingness to implement his lawful obligations
than to
that of one seeking to evade them.
Taute V Taute at 676H
34.
Respondent has shown a willingness to meet his responsibilities and
save for the excessive expenses that I have already adjusted,
I could
not find any evidence that he does not want to carry on with his
responsibilities.
35.
It is clear from the parties’ respective statement of income
and expenditure that the expenses they incur are necessary
save where
I have already indicated. Respondent’s counsel suggested that
when they were still together their joint income
was R27 000
(applicant’s net income of about R7 000 and respondent’s
net income of R19 000 before it was increased).
She further submitted
that now they have two households instead of one. Respondent alleged
that he wanted to move into the flat
in the property but that
applicant would not hear of it.
However,
taking into account the negative feelings displayed in their
affidavits, I doubt if this would have saved them some expenses.
Respondent had no option but to move out and rent accommodation. This
obviously creates more pressure on the joint income.
RESPONDENT’S
INTERIM ACCESS TO CHILDREN
36.
As I have indicated above, the remaining issue in this regard is
whether the children should spend one night weekend sleep over
at
respondent’s house or the entire weekend, that is, Friday to
Sunday.
36.
Generally courts are reluctant to interfere with status quo. However,
the principle of preserving status quo is subject to the
considerations that the interest of the child are and should prevail
and that the status quo must not constitute an unreasonable
state of
affairs.
Du Plooy v Du Plooy
1953 (3) SA 848
(T) at
853F
37.
It is clear from the affidavits that there is animosity between the
parties and that this has played itself in front of the
children. The
boy, in particular has expressed ill-feelings towards respondent’s
current girlfriend. It is alleged that applicant
has uttered certain
unsavory words about this woman in front of the children. I was also
informed that since the separation, the
children have never been to
respondent’s house. Furthermore, respondent alleges that the
boy is happy when they are together,
but his attitude changes when
applicant comes to where they are.
38.
The interests of the children demand that caution be exercised before
exposing them to the anxieties that may follow their first
encounter
with their non-custodian parent’s new partner. There is
evidence that the boy has some behavioral challenges which
are
attributed to his parents’ separation. He has since
changed schools.
39.
Respondent indicated in his affidavit that before their separation,
he often took the boy on fishing and hunting trips. There
is no
reason why this should not be continued and used as a building block
towards repairing the relationship between father and
son in
particular. The girl appears to be in good terms with the father, but
she too is overwhelmed by the whole situation, hence
she cries
whenever there is shouting between the parents.
40.
It is for these reasons that in my view, there should be gradual
integration between the respondent’s current family (his
girlfriend and her children) and the children. The concern should not
be how many nights the children spend at their father’s
house,
but rather, whether they are emotionally ready and whether there is
enough support from the parents to help them deal with
the encounter
with the new family. I have not seen a real commitment from both
parties on papers before me. Each one of them is
aware of the
problem, but they insist on exercising what they perceive as their
rights.
ORDER
41.
Under the circumstances, I make the following order:
41.1
The interim primary residence and care of the minor children born
between the parties is awarded to applicant, subject to the
respondent’s right of access and contact which will be
exercised as follows:
(a)
During the first two months after this order, respondent is entitled
to visit and take the children out every alternative Saturday
from
08:00 to 17:00 as well as every Wednesday from 18:00 to 20:00.
Applicant is ordered to afford the respondent sufficient privacy
with
the children.
(b)
Three months after the date of this order, respondent is entitled to
take the children for a one night weekend sleep over at
his house
subject to the following conditions:
(i)
The children are collected at 13:00 on alternative Saturdays and
returned at 17:00 on Sundays.
(ii) The children should
attend their normal Sunday School classes.
(c)
Respondent is entitled to visit the children on his and their
birthdays, Fathers Day for a reasonable duration, depending on
the
activities that may have been planned.
(d)
Respondent is entitled to reasonable telephone contact with the minor
children every alternative day between 18:30 and 19:00.
This contact
should not unreasonably interfere with the minor children’
scholastic, religious and or cultural activities
nor should it be
unreasonably be withheld.
41.2
Any of the parties may approach the court for variation of the rights
of access and contact with the minor children after the
Family
Advocate has made the recommendations. The parties may, if necessary
file additional affidavits in this regard.
41.3
Applicant is ordered to continue with the registration of the
minor children as beneficiaries in her medical aid, and
the
respondent is ordered to pay any shortfall that is not covered by the
medical aid. Any payments made by applicant should
be refunded by the
respondent within 14 (14) days of presentation of an invoice.
41.4
Respondent is ordered to pay crèche, preschool, primary
and after care fees of the minor children. This would
include school
uniforms, school necessities as well as extra mural activities.
2.5
Respondent is ordered to continue to pay for the parties’ and
children’ insurance and policies as they stand on
October 2011.
2.6
Respondent is ordered to continue to pay for the following monthly
expenses for the benefit of applicant and the children:
2.6.1
Half of the mortgage bond: R1 263.21 +_
2.6.2
City of Tshwane service fees for their former common household
R2 887.45+_
2.6.3
Groceries:
R 2 500.00
2.6.4
Bread, milk and vegetables R1 240.00
2.6.5
Half of maid’s salary
R600.00
2.6.6
Gardener
R480.00
2.6.7
Swimming pool maintenance: R200.00
2.7
Respondent is ordered to pay R5 000.00 as contribution to applicant’s
legal costs in monthly installments of R500.00
2.9
Save for payments to the financial institution, municipality and
schools, all payments due to the applicant in terms of this
order
should be paid into her banking account. Applicant should provide
respondent with the details.
2.10
All payments will commence with immediate effect and thereafter on
the 1
st
day of each and every subsequent month.
2.11
Respondent is ordered to provide applicant with proof of payments
made to third parties on a monthly basis.
2.12
Costs of this application are costs in the main action.
2.13
The limitations as stipulated in Rule 43 (6) / (7) / (8) are not be
applicable.
MAKHUBELE
AJ
Acting
Judge
DATE
OF HEARING: 14 FEBRUARY 2013.
DATE
OF JUDGMENT: 01 MARCH 2013.
APPEARANCES:
APPLICANT:
ADV. N C HARTMAN
Instructed
by: Van der Merwe Attorneys
41 Ivy Street
Clydesdale
PRETORIA
RESPONDENT:
ADV. L PIENAAR
Instructed
by: Jarvis Jacobus Raubenheimer
Inc
Woodpecker Place, Hillcrest
Office Park
177 Dyer Road, Hillcrest
PRETORIA