prompt a nd definitive determination pending a divorce action.
The question as far as maintenance goes is whether the
maintenance is reasonably required , and whether the person
responsible for the maintenance is reasonably able to afford
it. There are perhaps matters in which the question of
maintenance is more complicated than that , but this is not
one of them. In relation to care and contact with a minor
child, the sole question is what is in the child's best interests .
Generally speaking it will be in the child's best interests to
build a healthy, stable and loving relationship with both
parents. Again, there may be cases in which the question is
more complicated than that , b ut this is not one of those
cases.
Having made my prima facie views on this matter
clear to both parties who are present in court , I asked the
parties to engage to see if they could not agree on an
appropriate maintenance and contact regime. It is fair to say
that although the parties did not find each other completely,
they moved closer to each other during the negotiations.
I encourage both parties to continue to communicate
with each other in the best interests of their child ,
recognizing their reasonable needs - both financial and
emotional - and each other's capacity, both financial and
emotional, to meet them. It i s in my view generally
undesirable, especially in a case like this, for a High Court
Judge to determine such intimate details of a family’s life .
Be that as it may, to the extent that the parties have not been
able to reach agreement, it is my duty to make an appropriate
order.
I will start with the question of maintenance. Mr. M
has a net income of approximately R4 5000 per month. Ms. P
does not seek maintenance for herself. She seeks merely a
contribution towards I’s maintenance.
Mr. M does not suggest that he is not obliged to make
such a contribution. He does suggest that he does not have
the money necessary to make the contribution Ms. P want s.
The parties started quite far apart in their papers . Mr. M
wanted to contribute R35 00 a month, and Ms. P wanted a
monthly amount in excess of R14 000. After some
negotiation, Mr. M raised his tender to R5500 p er month, and
Ms. P lowered her requirements to R9000 per month.
In a case like this where neither of the parties is
particularly wealthy , and neither party is significantly richer
than the other, the primary question is what it is practical in
the circumstances to expect the contributing party to do .
I need not determine with prescision what Mr M is
capable of contributing to I’s maintenance. But I am satisfied
on all the facts before me that he is reasonably capable of a
contribution of R7 000 per month. I shall direct him to make
such a contribution , p ending the outcome of the divorce
action. The first such payment in will be made on 30
November 2025, and then on or before the last day of each
month thereafter , during the divorce action.
I now turn to the question of the reimbursement of
Ms. P’s medical costs incurred during I’s birth. The initial
amount Ms. P sought was in excess of R90000 . Mr. M
suggested that amount was inflated. But whether or not that
is true, the primary question in this case is what Mr. M can
reasonably afford.
It is no part of my function to direct Mr. M to pay
what he is unable , objectively , to pay. Having regard to Mr.
M ’s income, which is undisputed before me , and to his
criticisms of the way the initial contribution Ms. P sought was
calculated , I am satisfied that it is reasonable to expect Mr.
M to contribute the sum of R25 000 to Ms. P’s medical
expenses incurred during I’ s birth, and to expect that amount
be paid on or before 31 March 2026.
Now I turn to the question of the care of and contact
with I . The parties were agreed that I’s primary residence
should remain with Ms. P for the time being, and that the
matter should be referred to the Family Advocate for a report
to be produced with all deliberate speed , on I’s future best
interests. Given that agreement, I will make an order only
pending the delivery of the Family Advocate ’s report.
I have assumed in my order that the Family Advocate
will take no more than 18 months to deliver that report. I
think that i s a fairly generous assumption. But in the event
that I am wrong, the order I a m about to make will govern the
part ies’ relationship with I until she is 18 months old -
whereafter a further agreement can be reached based on the
Family Advocate’s recommendations, or the court may be
approached again.
The main bone of contention between the parties Is
whether Mr. M ought to be given unsupervised contact with I .
I a m not satisfied that Ms. P has advanced any reason why
Mr. M ought not to be given unsupervised contact as soon as
reasonably possible. To the extent that Ms. P criticized Mr.
M’s capacity to care for I, they were criticisms that could be
directed at any new parent.
There is no suggestion that Mr. M is any less
competent than any new parent to look after his child. And
in the circumstances of this case, that means that Mr. M has
a right , to the extent that it is reasonable , to time with I alone.
Accepting , I think, that immediate unsupervised contact was
impractical given the child's age, and the extent to which Mr.
M has been prevented from making unsupervised contact with
I in the past, Mr. M has tendered that , for a period of 2 weeks
from the date of any order I mi ght make , he will exercise
contact with I at his residence in Ms. P’s presence.
Thereafter Mr. M has, in his counter -application , set