Is a husband obliged to pay maintenance when his wife lives with another man?

 

A recent judgment concerned the issue whether a husband is obliged to pay maintenance to his former wife, who is involved in a relationship with another man, after divorce. The plaintiff issued summons against the defendant, her husband, during 2003, for a decree of divorce, maintenance for herself and their son and ancillary relief.

The parties had not lived together as man and wife for a continuous period of at least two years prior to the date of the institution of the divorce action. In terms of the provision of s 4(2)(a) of the Divorce Act 70 of 1979 (the Divorce Act), this is proof of the irretrievable break-down of the marriage. The remaining issues were whether the plaintiff is entitled to maintenance, and if so, what such maintenance should be. The defendant’s case in respect of the plaintiff’s entitlement to maintenance was that it is against public policy that a woman should be supported by two men.

The maintenance post-divorce Section 7(1) and (2) of the Act sets out when a court may order the payment of maintenance and the factors that should be taken into account when making such determination.

It provides as follows:

‘7(1) A Court granting a decree of divorce may in accordance with a written agreement between the parties make an order with regard to the division of the assets of the parties or the payment of maintenance by the one party to the other.

(2) In the absence of an order made in terms of subsection (1) with regard to the payment of maintenance by the one party to the other, the Court may, having regard to the existing or prospective means of each of the parties, their respective earning capacities, financial needs and obligations, the age of each of the parties, the duration of the marriage, the standard of living of the parties prior to the divorce, their conduct insofar as it may be relevant to the break-down of the marriage, an order in terms of subsection (3) and any other factor which in the opinion of the court should be taken into account, make an order which the court finds just in respect of the payment of maintenance by the one party to the other for any period until the death or remarriage of the party in whose favour the order is given, whichever event may first occur.’

Through a long line of cases dealing exclusively with maintenance pendente lite, it has become customary not to award maintenance to a spouse who is living in a permanent relationship with another.

In Drummond v Drummond the Appellate Division agreed with the definition of the phrase ‘living as husband and wife’ as stated by the full bench. The parties agreed that the husband would pay maintenance towards the wife and that maintenance would ‘cease should the plaintiff prove that the defendant was living as man and wife with a third person on a permanent basis’. The said phrase has the following meaning: ‘. . . the main components of a modus vivendi akin to that of husband and wife are, firstly, living under the same roof, secondly, establishing, maintaining and contributing to a joint household, and thirdly maintaining an intimate relationship.’ The plaintiff and S clearly live together as husband and wife according to the said definition.

In Cohen v Cohen the parties determined in a deed of settlement that the maintenance payable by the plaintiff (the husband) would cease if the defendant lived with another man as husband and wife for a certain specified period. This order was varied by a maintenance court in respect of the amounts the husband had to pay towards maintenance. In the maintenance court’s order the condition in respect of the cohabitation was left out. In a subsequent action it was decided that, where the magistrate had left out the said clause, the condition was no longer enforceable as it had been substituted by the maintenance court.

In Carstens v Carstens the wife claimed maintenance pendente lite in a rule 43 application while she lived with another man as husband and wife. Mullins J found: ‘It is in my view against public policy that a woman should be entitled to claim maintenance pendente lite from her husband when she is flagrantly and deliberately living as man and wife with another man. Not only is applicant in the present case living in adultery, but she and her lover are maintaining a joint household complete with the addition of an adulterine child. She has by her conduct accepted the support of Clarkson in lieu of that of her husband. The fact that Clarkson is unable to support her to the extent that she may have been accustomed in her matrimonial home with respondent does not appear to me to affect the position.’

In SP v HP (another rule 43 application) it was found, on the strength of Carstens, that ‘(t)he objection is not so much about the moral turpitude attaching to the illicit cohabitation, but more about the notion of a woman being supported by two men at the same time’.

In the unreported judgment of Qonqo v Qonqo dealing with a rule 43 application for maintenance pendente lite, the court, in spite of the fact that the applicant cohabited with her lover, ordered the respondent to pay maintenance pendente lite. The reason for ordering the payment of maintenance was that there was no proof that the lover supported the applicant in that instance.

It is also clear from the wording of s 7(2) of the Divorce Act that the legislature did not determine that maintenance should cease when the person receiving the maintenance is in a relationship akin to a marriage but only on remarriage. It is usually by way of an agreement between the parties that the additional condition relating to the cessation of payment of maintenance on the cohabitation with a third party is added.

Marriage entails that the parties establish and ‘maintain an intimate relationship for the rest of their lives which they acknowledge obliges them to support one another, to live together and to be faithful to one another’. One of the effects of marriage is the reciprocal duty of support. This duty of support does not exist, in circumstances such as these, if there is no marriage.

In Volks NO v Robinson and Others the proceedings had been initiated by Mrs Robinson who had been a partner in a permanent life partnership with Mr Shandling for a period of 16 years until his death in 2001. The couple had not been married, although there was no legal obstacle to their marriage. Following the death of Shandling, Robinson submitted a claim for maintenance against his deceased estate. The executor of the estate, Volks, rejected her claim because she was not ‘a survivor’ as contemplated by the Act. Skweyiya J said at paras 55 – 56: ‘Mrs Robinson never married the late Mr Shandling. There is a fundamental difference between her position and spouses or survivors who are predeceased by their husbands. Her relationship with Mr Shandling is one in which each was free to continue or not, and from which each was free to withdraw at will, without obligation and without legal or other formalities. There are a wide range of legal privileges and obligations that are triggered by the contract of marriage. In a marriage the spouse’s rights are largely fixed by law and not by agreement, unlike in the case of parties who cohabit without being married. The distinction between married and unmarried people cannot be said to be unfair when considered in the larger context of the rights and obligations uniquely attached to marriage. Whilst there is a reciprocal duty of support between married persons, no duty of support arises by operation of law in the case of unmarried cohabitants. The maintenance benefit in section 2(1) of the Act falls within the scope of the maintenance support obligation attached to marriage. The Act applies to persons in respect of whom the deceased person (spouse) would have remained legally liable for maintenance, by operation of law, had he or she not died.’

If regard is had to the decision of Cohen, that it cannot be read into s 7(2) of the Act that the maintenance will cease when the recipient of the maintenance lives as husband and wife with another, as an express agreement to that effect can be amended by the maintenance court. Having regard to the factors that should be taken into account when determining whether the defendant ought to pay maintenance for the plaintiff, in terms of s 7(2) of the Act, the factors mentioned are not exclusive.

When taking into consideration the factors mentioned in s 7(2) of the Act to determine whether the defendant is liable to pay maintenance the following emerge:

(a) The existing and prospective means of each of the parties and the parties’ respective earning capacities.

(b) The financial needs and obligations of the parties. It is clear that neither of the parties can live lavishly, but they are not destitute.

(c) The age of the parties.

(d) The duration of the marriage.

(e) The standard of living of the parties prior to the divorce.

(f) The conduct of the defendant insofar as it may be relevant to the breakdown of the marriage.

The facts of this matter differed materially from Carstens; SP v HP; and Qonqo. It is immaterial whether the defendant was unable to support the plaintiff and their son, or whether he was merely unwilling to do so. Other legislation also makes it clear that the legislature envisaged that a man can be supported by two women. In terms of the provisions s 8(4) of the Recognition of Customary Marriages Act 120 of 1998, a court dissolving a customary marriage has the powers contemplated in ss 7, 8, 9 and 10 of the Act. This has the effect that with polygamous customary marriages a husband will have the right to be supported by more than one wife, post-divorce, if circumstances demand it. Although it might have been a concept that was unacceptable in a previous dispensation, the concept is not unacceptable today. The court was of of the opinion that in the circumstances of this case it could not be said that it is against public policy that the defendant should be liable to pay maintenance to the plaintiff; there is no legislative prohibition and the court found that there was no general public policy to that effect or moral prohibition.

DIVORCE AND FAMILY LAW ATTORNEY CONSULTS IN CAPE TOWN, JOHANNESBURG, PRETORIA AND DURBAN

DIVORCE AND FAMILY LAW ATTORNEY CONSULTS IN CAPE TOWN, JOHANNESBURG, PRETORIA AND DURBAN

Bertus Preller is a Family and Divorce Law Attorney at Abrahams and Gross Inc. and offers expert advice and assistance in all aspects of divorce, separation and family matters. Due to demand he is also now offering weekly consultations in Johannesburg, Durban and Pretoria on all family law related matters. He offers a broad knowledge and years of experience of the whole range of family law issues and consider with you how best to resolve and help you to achieve your aims.

When considering children matters, he aims to assist you in resolving matters in a way that reflects the best interests of the children. His team can help you in preparing agreements to reflect what you would wish to happen should your relationship break down and can help you deal with any litigation arising either from divorce or break down of a relationship.

Whether advising in the context of divorce or separation his team recognise and understands the level of stress and emotional trauma that accompanies the breakdown of a marriage. There approach is to advise and assist in a sympathetic but objective manner. The team are sensitive to the very personal issues involved and are able to recommend suitably qualified professional counsellors/mediators, where appropriate.

DIVORCE

Married couples can dissolve their marriage through divorce. This ends the marriage and the divorced parties can then legally marry again. The divorce process will depend on whether the marriage is a civil marriage or a customary marriage. Civil marriages gets dissolved according to the rules and procedures set out in the South African Divorce Act. Marriages in terms of African Customary Law are dissolved according to the civil law but some of the consequences are determined by custom and tradition. Muslim and Hindi marriages are dissolved in terms of the rites and rituals of the religion.

There are a number of issues that need to be addressed in a divorce, including:

  • custody of the children
  • access to the children
  • maintenance
  • dividing up property
  • Contested Divorces

Contested Divorces are when the Parties involved cannot reach an agreement. A contested divorce can last anything between 3 months to 3 years and can be extremely expensive financially and emotionally draining.
Many Contested Divorce cases still do not go on Trial and are settled long before they end up in Court. It is extremely difficult to assess the costs of a Contested Divorce, for these matters his team would bill at an affordable hourly rate – as do the other Professional Practitioners who will become involved in this matter – for example Advocates, Psychologists, Private Investigators and the like.

The team is extremely flexible on fees when they act  in a Contested Divorce and negotiate our fees with due cognisance of the client’s income and what the client can afford. Client’s also know exactly what they are in for to enable right from the start.

Uncontested Divorces

This is by far the least expensive process to get divorced and recommended if you have been married for a short time, you don’t have children, you don’t have many assets, and you can talk to each other and reach agreement on the settlement. eDivorce is a DIY divorce servive founded by Bertus Preller. The eDivorce process has two Divorce Plans from which you can choose:

The Silver Plan – R 950 + Sheriff fee of between R 100 – R 150

  • All your divorce forms – completed for you by the eDivorce platform and checked by divorce experts
  • Step-by-Step Guide -W ritten in plain English and easy to follow
  • Fast Service – Documents delivered within 24 hours guaranteed

The Gold Plan – Managed Divorce Service – R 6 000 all inclusive

  • The price you pay is fixed from the start of your case and includes everything you will need.
  • Why choose our Gold Plan Managed Divorce Service?
  • No complicated form filling – We will do that for you.
  • All your required divorce documents-Prepared and completed by divorce specialists
  • 7 day a week service- We are open when it is convenient for you.
  • All documents filed at court for you – We deal with all the filing and admin.
  • Settlement Agreements are catered for- We can help you, with or without children
  • Get a Free Will – For both Husband and Wife if you need one.
  • Divorce in 4 to 6 weeks -Fast service guaranteed.
  • Attorney supervised – All services supervised by an Attorney
  • Appearance at Court – We appoint an Attorney or Advocate to appear on your behalf at Court.
  • Professional and Trustworthy
  • Save over R 2000 – Fixed fee for all the work

DIVORCE MEDIATION

The court system is the way disputes are decided, but there are now more effective and very different ways of resolving conflict than just going through our courts. Mediation is a voluntary and confidential process in which a mediator facilitates communication between the parties, assists them in identifying the issues to be settled and helping them reach a mutually agreeable resolution for their dispute. We specialize in mediating divorce and family issues.

Mediation can guide a couple through the many complex processes of divorce and can help them to make decisions regarding the division of their assets, custody, visitation rights and child support. We can also mediate and draft a Parenting Plan, offering a framework for divorced parents to help them to stay close to their children after the inevitable separation.

MAINTENANCE

We assist clients in both maintenance claims in regard to a spouse as well as the children. When a couple get divorced, one party is often in a much better financial position than the other. In order for a court to award maintenance to a spouse there must be a need for such maintenance and an ability to pay. In case of maintenance of children both parents have a duty to support their children having due regard to their financial positions.

RULE 43 APPLICATIONS

We assist clients in obtaining maintenance pending the finalisation of the divorce proceedings. A Rule 43 Application is an interim application which is brought mainly in cases of contested divorces in order to obtain interim relief pending finalisation of the divorce. The relief which can be requested include maintenance for the wife, maintenance for the children, interim custody and control or access to the children and interim contributions towards legal costs.

MATRIMONIAL PROPERTY & PROPRIETARY CLAIMS

We assist clients with advice regarding the proprietary claims in their marriage. In a marriage in community of property, division of the joint estate is a natural consequence of a divorce. Forfeiture of benefits of the marriage in community of property can however be claimed by a party. The court would have regard to various factors i.e. the duration of the marriage, circumstances leading to the breakdown, misconduct of one of the parties etc.
Where the marriage is out of community of property specifically excluding the cruel system and entered into after 1 November 1994, on dissolution of the marriage in essence each spouse retains his or her own separate assets. There are, however various other potential claims which may be instituted based on moneys loaned and advanced, universal partnerships etc. Where a marriage is out of community of property without the accrual and entered before 1 November 1984 a redistribution order in terms of section 7 (3) of the divorce Act can potentially be claimed by a successful party. In order to be successful, a party must satisfy the court that he or she contributed directly or indirectly to the increase of the estate of the other.

Where the marriage is out of community of property subject to the accrual system the net assets of each spouse is determined. Any assets specifically excluded from the operation of the accrual in the Antenuptial Contract are excluded from the calculation.

Any commencement value, increase in accordance with the rise in the Consumer Price Index (CPI) from date of marriage to date of divorce, is deducted from the accrual to each party’s estate. The net results (estates) of each party are considered and the lesser net accrual deducted from the greater.

The net difference between the parties is then divided in two or in such other ratio as the parties may have agreed in their Antenuptial Contract and the party showing the greater accrual shall pay the other such amount in settlement of the patrimonial consequences of the marriage.

FAMILY – DOMESTIC VIOLENCE AND ABUSE INTERDICTS

We assist clients in obtaining protection orders under the domestic violence act in cases where domestic violence has been committed. Domestic violence includes physical abuse, sexual abuse, and emotional, verbal and psychological abuse.

It further includes intimidation, harassment, stalking, and damage to property, entry into someone’s residence without consent where the parties do not share the same residence or any other controlling or abusive behaviour towards the complainant.

VISITATION – CUSTODY AND ACCESS

We assist clients in every aspect of obtaining custody, access and/or visitation rights as well as drafting proper parenting plans in terms of the new Children’s Act. We also assist clients to obtain endorsement of Settlement Agreements at the family advocate where children’s rights are at stake.

ADOPTION

Adopting a child in South Africa is a complex matter. We work in conjunction with social workers in private practice who offers personalised and professional services four South African and International adoptions.

COHABITATION AGREEMENTS

In an age when one out of every three marriages fails, parties with a trail of prior relationships and marriages behind them may prefer to live together, rather than get married to each other. These couples and same-sex or heterosexual partners who choose not to get married should sign a domestic partnership ( life partnership or cohabitation) agreement to protect themselves should their relationship come to an end.

PARENTING PLANS

We assist both divorced couples and unmarried couples with formulating parenting plans that is in the best interest of their minor children.

PRIVATE INVESTIGATIONS

We assist clients in investigations regarding matrimonial services such as a cheating spouse. We formed an alliance with a reputable private investigation organisation which is based nationally who can investigate any matter notwithstanding whether it is of a matrimonial or financial nature.

Bertus Preller is a Divorce and Family Law Attorney in Cape Town and has more than 20 years experience in law and 13 years as a practising attorney. He specializes in Family law and Divorce Law at Abrahams and Gross Attorneys Inc. in Cape Town. Bertus is also the Family Law expert on Health24.com and on the expert panel of Law24.com. His areas of expertise are Divorce Law, Family Law, Divorce Mediation, Custody (care and contact) of children, same sex marriages, unmarried fathers rights, domestic violence matters and international divorce law.

Maintenance and Child Support in South Africa

Maintenance and Child Support in South Africa

Every magistrate’s court in South Africa is within its area of jurisdiction a maintenance court for purposes of the Maintenance Act 99 of 1998.

Any party to the proceedings under the Maintenance Act may be represented by a legal representative.

Lodging your complaint

To commence proceedings in an application for maintenance or an application for the substitution or discharge of an existing maintenance order, the applicant (or complainant as he is called in the Maintenance Act) must lodge a complaint in writing with the maintenance officer at the maintenance court, to the effect that

  • the person legally liable to maintain the complainant or person (for example, dependent child) on whose behalf maintenance is claimed is failing to do so; or
  • good cause or reason exists for the substitution (increase or decrease) or discharge of an existing maintenance order.

Applying for a maintenance order

In the first instance the complaint must be made in form A of the Annexure to the Maintenance Regulations (GN R1361/15-11-1999). The complainant must state in the complaint the reason why the person from whom maintenance is claimed is legally liable to maintain the person in respect of whom maintenance is claimed. The following people have reciprocal duties to maintain each other:

Parents & children

Both parents of a child have a duty to maintain the child according to their respective means. The duty exists irrespective of whether the child is adopted, born in or out of wedlock, or born of the first or a subsequent marriage.

When the court makes an order in respect of the maintenance of a child it will take into account inter alia

  • what the reasonable maintenance needs of the child are;
  • that both parents jointly have a duty to support a child; and
  • that the parents’ respective shares of their obligation are apportioned between them according to their means.

Husband & wife

At common law this duty comes to an end on divorce. However, in terms of the Divorce Act 70 of 1979, the court granting the decree of divorce may make an order directing one spouse to pay maintenance to the other spouse after divorce, either by agreement between the parties or, in the absence of such an agreement, after taking into account various factors set out in s 7(2) of the Divorce Act. If no such order was granted at the time of the divorce, the divorcé cannot at a later stage approach the maintenance court for an order directing his ex-spouse to pay him maintenance. However, if such an order was granted by the divorce court, the divorcé may approach the maintenance court at a later stage to apply for a substitution (increase or decrease) or the discharge of the existing order, provided that good cause exists for such a substitution or discharge.

Application for substitution or discharge

In the second instance, ie where application is made for the substitution or discharge of an existing maintenance order, the complaint must be made in form B of the annexure to the Regulations Relating to Maintenance (GN R1361/15-11-1999). The complainant must state the alleged reason or cause on which he relies for such substitution or discharge of the maintenance order.

In both instances, ie when application is made for a maintenance order or for the substitution or discharge of an existing order, the complainant must provide full details of his assets, income and the monthly expenditure in respect of himself and the children on whose behalf maintenance is claimed, supported by documentary proof. This information must be attested to under oath. Form A and form B to the Regulations Relating to Maintenance contain all the necessary information, including a comprehensive list of monthly expenses. The attorney should assist his client to complete the relevant form in full to avoid the matter being referred back to the complainant for further information, which will result in delay. Once the relevant form has been completed, it must be handed to the maintenance officer at the maintenance court who will issue a reference number for the particular matter.

The investigation

Once the complaint has been lodged with the maintenance officer, the latter will investigate the complaint. For purposes of the investigation, the maintenance officer may subpoena both the complainant and the defendant to appear before him on a date and time mentioned in the subpoena and to provide, inter alia, information regarding the financial position of the people affected by the application. In practice, to save costs, a subpoena is normally served on the defendant only, whereas the complainant receives mere written notification of the date and time of the investigation.

The investigation affords the parties’ attorneys the opportunity to exchange information regarding the maintenance needs of the people in respect of whom maintenance is claimed and the financial position of the parties. Settlement negotiations often take place at the informal inquiry. The normal rules relating to discovery do not apply in the maintenance court. The attorney should, therefore, at the investigation make use of the opportunity to obtain as much information as possible from the opposing party, necessary for the preparation of the inquiry (trial). It is advisable that a list of the documents and information required for purposes of such preparation be prepared in advance and handed to the opponent at the investigation. The magistrate may be requested to warn the party requested to furnish the information and documents, within a certain period of time.

The inquiry

After the maintenance officer has investigated the complaint he may institute a formal inquiry, which is in effect a maintenance trial before a magistrate of the maintenance court. A date for the inquiry must be arranged with the maintenance officer and magistrate. The magistrate will warn both parties to be present at the inquiry.

The maintenance officer may subpoena any person to appear before the maintenance court on the day of the inquiry and to give evidence under oath or affirmation, or to produce any book, document or statement relating to the financial position of any party affected by the legal liability of a person to maintain any other person. This includes full particulars of the person’s earnings signed by his employer. If the attorney of any of the parties to the proceedings requires a person to be subpoenaed to give evidence regarding the financial position of either of the parties or to produce a book, document or statement as referred to above, he should approach the maintenance officer and request that a subpoena be issued in respect of such a person.

At the maintenance inquiry the court may also examine any person who is present at the inquiry although he was not subpoenaed as a witness, and may recall and re-examine any person already examined.

The normal rules of evidence applicable in respect of civil proceedings in the magistrate’s court apply in respect of the inquiry.

At the inquiry documentary evidence in the form of a statement in writing by any person other than the person against whom a maintenance order may be made may be placed before the court as evidence, provided that a copy of the statement together with any documents referred to in the statement are served on the person against whom a maintenance order may be made at least 14 days before the date on which the statement is to be submitted as evidence. Such person may then, at least seven days before the commencement of the inquiry, object to the statement being submitted as evidence.

It is important to note that the maintenance court may take into account any evidence in any proceedings in respect of the existing maintenance order or accept as prima facie proof any finding of fact in any such proceedings. In other words, evidence led and findings of fact in a divorce action may at a later stage be used in proceedings in the maintenance court. The record of such evidence or findings shall on its production at the inquiry be admissible as evidence, and so will any copy or transcription or extract from it certified as a true copy, transcription or extract by the registrar or clerk of the court or any other officer having custody of the records of the court where the existing maintenance order in question was issued.

After consideration of the evidence at the inquiry the maintenance court may decide as follows:

  • Where no maintenance order is in force, the court may make a maintenance order against the person proved to be legally liable to maintain the person in respect of whom maintenance was claimed. The court may be requested to order that the maintenance be paid in at the maintenance court where the complainant will then have to collect the payments from month to month, or that the maintenance be paid into an account at a financial institution by stop order or in another manner.
  • Where no maintenance order is in force the court may also make an order, in the case where maintenance is to be paid in respect of a child, for the payment to the mother of the child of such sum of money together with interest thereon, as the mother is in the opinion of the maintenance court entitled to recover from the person in respect of expenses incurred by the mother in connection with the birth of the child and expenditure incurred by the mother in connection with the maintenance of the child from the date of the child’s birth to the date of the inquiry.
  • Where there is already a maintenance order in force, the court may substitute the existing maintenance order with a new order or discharge the existing maintenance order, or the court may make no order.

Maintenance orders by consent

A maintenance order may also be obtained by consent.

The person against whom the maintenance order is sought must consent in writing to the maintenance order being granted. A copy of the written consent must be handed to the maintenance officer at the inquiry. Where such written consent has been obtained it is not necessary for the person against whom the order is to be made to appear in court at the inquiry. An example of such written consent can be found in part A of form G of the annexure to the Maintenance Regulations. A copy of the order made against the person not present at the inquiry must be delivered or tendered to him by a maintenance officer, police officer, sheriff or maintenance investigator. The return of any such officer, sheriff or investigator showing that a copy was delivered or tendered to the person shall be sufficient proof of the fact that he is aware of the terms of the order.

Maintenance orders by default

A maintenance order may also be obtained by default.

If the person against whom a maintenance order is sought does not appear in court on the date and time mentioned in the subpoena issued for his attendance at the inquiry to give evidence or for the production of a book, document or statement, the complainant may apply to court for an order by default. This application may be brought through the maintenance officer on the date of the inquiry.

The court must be satisfied that the person against whom the order by default is sought has knowledge of the subpoena issued for his attendance at the inquiry and/or to produce any book, document or statement at the inquiry. The return by a maintenance officer, police officer, sheriff or maintenance investigator showing that the subpoena was served on such person will be sufficient proof that he has knowledge of the fact that he had to attend court or that he had to produce a book, document or statement, as the case may be.

The court may request the complainant to adduce evidence in writing or orally, in support of his complaint, before an order by default is granted.

A copy of the order by default must be delivered or tendered to the person against whom the order was granted, by any maintenance officer, sheriff, police officer or maintenance investigator. The return by such officer, sheriff or investigator showing that a copy was delivered or tendered to such person will be sufficient proof that he is aware of the terms of the order.

The person against whom the order by default was granted may apply to the maintenance court for the variation or setting aside of the order within 20 days after the day on which the person became aware of the order by default or within such further period as the maintenance court on good cause shown shall allow. Notice of an application to set aside an order granted by default must be given to the person who lodged the complaint at least 14 days before the day on which the application is to be heard.

Appeal

Any person not satisfied with the order made by the maintenance court may appeal against such order to the High Court having jurisdiction.

Enforcement

When a person against whom a maintenance order has been made fails to comply with the terms of the order, and the order remains unsatisfied for a period of ten days, the person in whose favour the order was made may apply to the maintenance court where the person against whom the order was made is resident, for authorisation to issue a warrant of execution or for an order for the attachment of emoluments or for an order for the attachment of debt.

An order for the attachment of emoluments may also, on application by the complainant, be granted in respect of future monthly maintenance payments. The effect of such an order is that the defendant’s employer will be directed to deduct the amount mentioned in the order monthly from the defendant’s salary and to pay such amount to the complainant on behalf of the defendant.

Warrant of execution

The warrant of execution must substantially correspond with form L of the annexure to the Maintenance Regulations and must be prepared in triplicate.

The complainant must prepare part A of form L and thereafter the form must be lodged in triplicate with the clerk of the maintenance court concerned, who will issue the warrant of execution by preparing part B of form L of the annexure, provided that he is satisfied that

  • authorisation for the issuing of a warrant of execution was granted; and
  • the warrant of execution has been properly prepared;
  • The clerk of the maintenance court will, after the warrant of execution has been issued,
  • return the original warrant of execution and one copy to the complainant; and
  • file the second copy of the warrant of execution in the relevant court file.

The original warrant and a copy must be handed to the sheriff or maintenance investigator for execution. Such person shall complete part C and, if applicable, part D of form L of the annexure and return the form to the clerk of the maintenance court, once the warrant has been executed.

The person against whom a warrant of execution had been issued may apply to the maintenance court concerned to have the warrant of execution set aside or suspended, by giving notice of his intention to make the application to the person in whose favour the maintenance order was made at least 14 days prior to the date on which the application is to be heard. The court may at the hearing of the application request either or both parties to adduce evidence in writing or orally, as the court considers necessary.

The court may, when suspending a warrant of execution, grant an order for the attachment of emoluments or the attachment of debt.

Attachment of emoluments

The complainant may request the maintenance court to make an order for the attachment of any emoluments at present or in future owing or accruing to the person against whom the maintenance order was made, for the amount necessary to cover the amount such person has failed to pay, together with interest thereon as well as the costs of the attachment. This order will authorise the employer of the person who failed to comply with the maintenance order to deduct from that person’s emoluments and to pay on that person’s behalf the amount specified in the order until the amount due, plus interest and costs, has been paid in full.

To give effect to the order for attachment of emoluments, the maintenance officer shall within seven days after the order was granted cause a notice with a copy of the order to be served on the employer of the person against whom the order was granted. The notice to the employer must substantially correspond with part A of form O of the annexure to the Maintenance Regulations.

An order for attachment of emoluments may, on application by the person against whom such order was granted, be suspended, amended or rescinded. Notice of such application must be given to the person in whose favour the maintenance order was made at least 14 days prior to the date on which the application is to be heard. The application must substantially correspond with part A of form N of the annexure to the Maintenance Regulations whereas the notice must substantially correspond with part B of the form.

Attachment of debt

The maintenance court may on application by the person in whose favour a maintenance order was made, or when it suspends a warrant of execution, make an order for the attachment of any debt at present or in future owing or accruing to the person against whom the maintenance order was made, for the amount necessary to cover the amount which the creditor failed to pay, together with interest thereon as well as the costs of the attachment. This order will direct the person who has incurred the obligation to make the payment specified in the order.

As in the case of the attachment of emoluments, an order for the attachment of debt may, on application by the person against whom the order was granted, be suspended, amended or rescinded. Notice of such application must be given to the person in whose favour the maintenance order was made at least 14 days prior to the date on which the application is to be heard. The application must substantially comply with part A of form P of the annexure to the Maintenance Regulations, whereas the notice must substantially correspond with part B of the form.

Compiled by Bertus Preller

Family Law Attorney

Abrahams and Gross Inc.
http://www.divorceattorney.co.za

info@divorceattorney.co.za