Case Law[2022] ZAGPPHC 16South Africa
H.S.M v P.J.M (33977/2021) [2022] ZAGPPHC 16 (14 January 2022)
High Court of South Africa (Gauteng Division, Pretoria)
14 January 2022
Judgment
begin wrapper
begin container
begin header
begin slogan-floater
end slogan-floater
- About SAFLII
About SAFLII
- Databases
Databases
- Search
Search
- Terms of Use
Terms of Use
- RSS Feeds
RSS Feeds
end header
begin main
begin center
# South Africa: North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
South Africa: North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
You are here:
SAFLII
>>
Databases
>>
South Africa: North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
>>
2022
>>
[2022] ZAGPPHC 16
|
Noteup
|
LawCite
sino index
## H.S.M v P.J.M (33977/2021) [2022] ZAGPPHC 16 (14 January 2022)
H.S.M v P.J.M (33977/2021) [2022] ZAGPPHC 16 (14 January 2022)
Download original files
PDF format
RTF format
make_database: source=/home/saflii//raw/ZAGPPHC/Data/2022_16.html
sino date 14 January 2022
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: 33977/2021
REPORTABLE:
NO
OF
INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: NO
REVISED:
NO
In
the matter between:
H[….]
S[….]
M[.…]
APPLICANT
And
P[….]
J[….]
M[….]
RESPONDENT
JUDGMENT
Van
der Schyff J
[1]
In this Rule 43 application, the applicant seeks
an order for maintenance pending the finalisation of the divorce for
R 15 000,00
per month, a declaration that she is entitled to reside
in the immovable property known as [….], Centurion, inclusion
in
the respondent's medical aid scheme and a contribution towards her
legal costs.
[2]
The parties were married out of community of
property with the exclusion of the accrual system on 15 December
2008. While the applicant
was initially not employed, and maintained
solely by the respondent, the position changed about five years ago
when the respondent's
contract with [….] was not renewed. This
necessitated the applicant to seek employment. She is currently
employed as a nursery
school teacher. Her net salary is R 8 882.35
per month. The respondent is a pensioner. His primary source of
income is derived
from leasing out one of his two immovable
properties. From this, he earns R16 100.00 per month. He also earns
an amount of R428.00
from a policy. He acknowledges that he sometimes
does home repairs but that the income from this source is negligible.
[3]
The respondent left the matrimonial home in May
2021. He avers that the applicant used her salary to maintain herself
for the past
five years since he became unemployed. He points out
that the applicant is currently residing in his immovable property
and that
she refuses to move to the flatlet for him to rent out the
house to increase his income to their mutual benefit.
[4]
During argument, the applicant's legal
representative submitted that there is a possibility that the
respondent does contract work
for which he is remunerated in cash.
This averment has not been made in the founding affidavit, and I
cannot take cognisance thereof
in deciding the application.
[5]
The respondent is currently contributing to the
applicant's maintenance in that he is providing accommodation for
her. Although
it is evident from the papers that a dispute existed
regarding her interim residence in the immovable property because the
respondent
wants to rent out the property, the respondent stated that
the applicant's interim residence in the property is not contested.
However, the consequence is that the house cannot be rented out, and
no alternative income can be secured.
[6]
As for the applicant's claim to be included on
the respondent's medical aid, the respondent claims that the
applicant has not been
a member of his medical aid scheme for the
past five years. It was a joint decision to remove her due to their
financial situation.
[7]
The respondent's counsel submitted that the
applicant did not make out a case for a contribution to legal costs.
There is no reason
to assume that the divorce action will result in
protracted litigation.
[8]
In considering the application, I am of the view
that the applicant's expenses were inflated. I accept that the
respondent provided
in the applicant's maintenance needs when the
marriage was concluded. However, the parties' financial position
changed significantly
when the respondent's contract with [….]
was not renewed. I agree with the respondent's counsel that in these
circumstances,
an order for maintenance
pendente
lite
will put the applicant in a better
position than she was in before the respondent left the matrimonial
home. The monetary value
ascribed to her residence in the matrimonial
home should not be overlooked or disregarded. The applicant's refusal
to move to the
flatlet for the main house to be rented out can
likewise not be disregarded.
[9]
As for costs, it is justified that the costs of
this application be costs in the cause. Although the respondent
agreed to the applicant's
continued residence in the matrimonial home
pending the finalisation of the divorce, this was a point of
contention between the
parties before the application was issued.
ORDER
In
the result, the following order is granted:
1.
The applicant is entitled to reside in the
immovable property known as[….] Centurion, Pretoria, Gauteng
Province, pending
the finalisation of the divorce.
2.
The costs of this application are costs in the
cause.
E
van der Schyff
Judge
of the High Court
Delivered:
This judgement is handed down electronically by uploading it to the
electronic file of this matter on CaseLines. As a
courtesy gesture,
it will be sent to the parties/their legal representatives by email.
The date for hand-down is deemed to be 14
January 2022.
For
the applicant:
Mr.
H. Hansen
Instructed
by:
Hansen Inc. Attorneys
For
the respondent:
Adv. M Fabricius
Instructed
by:
Le Roux & Du Plessis Attorneys
Date
of the hearing:
11 January 2022
Date
of judgment:
14
January 2022
sino noindex
make_database footer start
Similar Cases
C.D v J.H.D (10025/21) [2022] ZAGPPHC 456 (27 June 2022)
[2022] ZAGPPHC 456High Court of South Africa (Gauteng Division, Pretoria)99% similar
M.B.M v J.P.M (63162/2020) [2022] ZAGPPHC 912 (23 November 2022)
[2022] ZAGPPHC 912High Court of South Africa (Gauteng Division, Pretoria)99% similar
S.P.M v R.T.S (10013/2021) [2022] ZAGPPHC 44 (26 January 2022)
[2022] ZAGPPHC 44High Court of South Africa (Gauteng Division, Pretoria)99% similar
S.S.M v P.J N.O and Another (15515/2017) [2023] ZAGPPHC 2024; 2024 (3) SA 124 (GP) (18 December 2023)
[2023] ZAGPPHC 2024High Court of South Africa (Gauteng Division, Pretoria)99% similar
J.K.B v H.B (A97/2021) [2022] ZAGPPHC 319 (13 May 2022)
[2022] ZAGPPHC 319High Court of South Africa (Gauteng Division, Pretoria)99% similar