JUDGMENT
127936- 2024_ 06- 05- 2026 / fjj
2
respondent, Mr D ’s, obligation to maintain the two children
while they are in the care of the applicant, Ms S. The
children are in Mr D's care every other weekend, and for the
rest of the time they are Ms S's responsibility.
In those circumstances, it is inarguable that Mr D
ought to pay to Ms S a reasonable amount to maintain the
children, because they are in her care for the overwhelming
majority of the time.
In calculating maintenance pendente lite, a court is
not required to exercise a line- item veto over the parties' 10
various expenses. N or is it required to trawl through their
bank statements in order to detect every last cent of
income. What is required is a rough and ready but
reasonable estimation of each party’s means and their
reasonable needs. I have with the assistance of counse l
and M r D , who appeared in person, been able to make such
an estimation .
Mr D earns from his salary just under R50 000 per
month. On top of that he receives approximately R27 000
per month, primarily from rental income on property he
20
owns. That brings us to a ballpark figure of R77 000 per
month. Ms Patel , who appeared for Ms S , suggested that
the figure is in fact higher than that , b ut the amount that Ms
Patel posited – somewhere in the region of R90 000 – i s not
so much greater than the amount Mr D admits to receiving
JUDGMENT
127936- 2024_ 06- 05- 2026 / fjj
3
as to effect the reasonableness of the calculations I am
required to make.
Ms S earns approximately R27 000 per month from
her employment. She also, it is admitted, earns some
additional income , a lthough it i s not clear to me on the
papers how much additional income she earns or how
reliable it is.
I will base my order on the proposition that Mr D's
income is roughly R77 000 per month a nd that Ms S 's
income is approximately R27 000 per month. 10
It is accepted that Mr D already pays the children's
school fees and the cost of their medical aid contributions.
There is a dispute about the extent to which Mr D pays for
medical expenses not covered by the children’s medical aid
scheme, and for additional amounts in respect of the
children's education that are not covered by school fees .
However, both parties accepted that school fees and
medical costs, together with additional educational and
medical costs for both children, would come to
approximately R10 000 a month.
I shall assume, in Mr D's 20
favour, that these amounts are amounts that he currently
pays . T hey are, in any event, amounts that Mr. D will be
required to pay in the order I propose to make.
It is, however, necessary to deduct that R10 000 from
Mr. D’s total monthly income in order to calculate his cash
JUDGMENT
127936- 2024_ 06- 05- 2026 / fjj
4
maintenance contribution. Having done that, I come to a
figure of R67 000 per month, from which I must deduct a
further cash contribution to the children's maintenance
beyond school and medical expenses .
At the outset of her argument I put to Ms Patel that it
seemed to me that a reasonable cash contribution would be
in the region of R10 000 per month per child. Ms Patel
argued quite strenuously that this would leave Ms S with a
significant monthly deficit and for that reason R10 000 a
month would be unreasonable. Ms Patel pointed to the 10
substantial shortfall a contribution of R10 000 per month
per child would leave in Ms S's monthly budget , as
tabulated by her in her financial disclosures and her other
paper s. I am accordingly persuaded that R10 000 a month
may be insufficient.
Ms Patel persuaded me that a contribution of R15 000
per month per child would be appropriate. This will not
completely eliminate the deficit to which Ms Patel drew my
attention, but it seems to me that R15 000 rand per month
per child is at the upper end of what M r S , on his salary and 20
his other income, can reasonably be expected to pay. This
will leave Mr S with R37 000 per month for his own
expenses.
A n order in terms of Rule 43, pendente lite , is not
required to be statistical ly perfect, in the sense that it
JUDGMENT
127936- 2024_ 06- 05- 2026 / fjj
5
meets every quantified need expressed on an applicant’s
papers. A Rule 43 order need only be based on a
reasonable estimate of each party's needs and ability to
meet their reasonable obligations. It seems to me that on
the facts that I have set out, the amount of maintenance I
will presently order is reasonable in that sense.
Ms S asked for a contribution to costs in the divorce
action . It is customary in this court, when a contribution to
costs is sought, that the applicant for such a contribution
provides a draft invoice or a draft bill of costs, which places
10
the c ourt in a position to understand what the expenses
associated with each trial stage are likely to be.
This is not the approach that was adopted on Ms S's
behalf. A b ald estimate was provided in the founding
papers. That b ald estimate does not tally with the amount
sought in Ms. S’s Notice of Motion or in her draft order .
Accordingly, I am not in a position at this stage to provide a
reasonable estimate of what Ms. S’s costs will be . Nor am I
in a position to c onsider what Mr D's reasonable
contribution to those costs, if any, sh ould be. 20
In calculating Mr. D’s maintenance contribution, I
have had regard to the fact that he may in future be
required to contribute to Ms S's legal costs . It seems to me
that there is, if required, something left in his income to
make such a contribution in the event that it is ordered.