M.I.B (born H[…]) v D.B (2023-079189) [2026] ZAGPPHC 411 (2 May 2026)
This judgment of Smit AJ in the Gauteng Division, Pretoria, is a useful working example of how a court structures an award of rehabilitative maintenance in a long marriage, and of the evidentiary discipline it expects from a spouse who claims to be supported after divorce.
The Facts
The parties married on 13 December 2003 out of community of property, with their marriage subject to the accrual system in terms of an antenuptial contract concluded under Chapter 1 of the Matrimonial Property Act 88 of 1984, the commencement values of both estates being declared as nil. One child was born of the marriage in September 2004, a university student who continued to reside with his mother in the former matrimonial home. Summons was served on the defendant on 15 August 2023, and both parties accepted that the marriage should be dissolved.
The plaintiff had been employed as a Marketing Advisor at Momentum Insurance from 2000 until 2018, earning roughly R77,427.00 gross per month. By joint decision the parties agreed she would leave her position to support their talented son, then in Grade 8; the court accepted that she did not abandon her career to advance the defendant’s occupation, but rather in the child’s interests. On leaving, she received pension proceeds of R1,376,615.00 and paid R900,000.00 of that into the bond over the former matrimonial home. From November 2018 the defendant paid her R40,000.00 per month, later increased to R45,000.00, supplemented by annual bonus payments between 2019 and 2022. The plaintiff described their long-standing arrangement as one of “dop en krop”, the defendant carrying the home-related costs and she meeting the household running expenses.
The plaintiff returned to work on 1 July 2023, earning R15,129.00 net per month, since increased to R19,000.00. She placed her monthly need at R57,265.21 and sought rehabilitative maintenance of R45,000.00 per month for ten years. The defendant, earning R125,974.52 net per month and intending to retire in 2030, had paid maintenance pendente lite of R45,000.00, reduced to R25,000.00 by order of 26 February 2025. The breakdown of the marriage was attributed largely to the defendant’s alcohol abuse, which he said had since been resolved. Beyond the quantum and duration of maintenance, the live issues concerned the period of the bond payments, the conditions for the sale of the former matrimonial home, the defendant’s liability for the plaintiff’s medical aid, and costs, the parties having already agreed on a 50% division of the defendant’s pension interest and continued support of their son.
The Statutory Framework and the Onus to Establish Need
Maintenance between former spouses is governed by section 7 of the Divorce Act 70 of 1979. Where the parties agree, section 7(1) permits the court to make an order in accordance with their written agreement; in the absence of such agreement, section 7(2) empowers the court to make a just maintenance order having regard to the existing and prospective means of each party, their respective earning capacities, their financial needs and obligations, their ages, the duration of the marriage, the pre-divorce standard of living, the conduct of the parties insofar as it is relevant to the breakdown, and any other factor the court considers relevant.
These factors do not weigh evenly between the spouses. Relying on S.T.H. v A.T.H. 060610/22 [2024] ZAGPPHC and, through it, on EH v SH 2012 (4) SA 164 (SCA), the court reaffirmed that a spouse claiming maintenance must establish a need to be supported, failing which no maintenance order would be just. The onus accordingly rested on the plaintiff to prove her need, and not on the defendant to disprove it.
The court drew further guidance from Taute v Taute 1974 (2) SA 675 (E), noting that a claim founded on reasonable grounds will be received more favourably than one making extravagant demands, and that a spouse who shows a willingness to maintain the other will be heeded with greater sympathy than one who seeks to avoid the obligation. In Kroon v Kroon 1986 (4) SA the phrase “financial needs and obligations” was explained as the money each party requires for day-to-day living and for unavoidable commitments, the court there recognising that rehabilitative maintenance may be awarded to a spouse who devoted years to the household and the children, for a period sufficient to allow training or retraining for employment.
Rehabilitative Maintenance, the Clean Break and the Marital Standard of Living
The court located rehabilitative maintenance within the “clean break” philosophy explained in Beaumont v Beaumont 1987 (1) SA 967 (A), where the Appellate Division accepted that, although our statute contains no express clean-break provision, the idea underlying it is not foreign to our law, and that courts should, where the facts permit, use their powers to bring about a complete termination of the financial dependence of one spouse on the other. The Beaumont case was careful to add that the facts will not always allow such a final severance, and that everything ultimately turns on the court’s assessment of what is just between the parties.
On the standard of living, the court applied MB v NB 2010 (3) 220 (SGJ), which stresses that a maintenance claim is not a vehicle for regaining a former lifestyle, but for sustaining the claimant’s current, reduced standard of living within the limits of affordability. Measured against that standard, the court tested the plaintiff’s stated need of R57,265.21. It regarded several items as unrealistic, including a R10,000.00 monthly legal fee and inflated motor expenses, and assessed her genuine monthly expenses at approximately R42,000.00. Set against her salary of R19,000.00, this produced a shortfall of about R23,000.00 per month.
The court likewise found the ten-year period to be excessive. The defendant’s intended retirement in 2030 meant that his income, and with it his ability to pay, would end within a few years, while the plaintiff stood to receive roughly R6,500,000.00 as her agreed 50% share of his pension interest. An industrial psychologist, Ms Kelly-Moraj, was called to confirm the plaintiff’s employability, the plaintiff having already re-entered the labour market. Weighing the willingness the defendant had shown to support his family throughout the marriage against the plaintiff’s proven shortfall and her capacity to rebuild her earnings, the court arrived at a figure and a structure designed to cushion her transition rather than to sustain her indefinitely.
The Order and Its Significance for Practitioners
The court granted a decree of divorce and ordered the defendant to pay rehabilitative maintenance of R30,000.00 per month, escalating annually with CPI, together with a contribution of R11,000.00 per month towards medical aid on the plaintiff’s removal as a dependant from the defendant’s scheme. Critically, both obligations were made terminable on the earliest of the defendant’s retirement, the sale of the former matrimonial home, the plaintiff’s remarriage or entry into a new relationship, or the death of either party. The defendant was further ordered to service the bond and a defined list of property-related expenses pending sale, the net proceeds to be shared equally, and to contribute R100,000.00 towards the plaintiff’s trial costs, while the agreed 50% pension division under section 7(8) of the Divorce Act was confirmed.
For practitioners the judgment is a practical illustration of how the clean-break principle is given effect in a long marriage where one spouse left the workforce by choice rather than to advance the other’s career. It shows a court prepared to interrogate and trim an inflated schedule of need down to a defensible figure, to fix maintenance by reference to the payer’s finite earning horizon rather than a round number of years, and to build automatic termination triggers into the order so that dependence ends with the events that make it unnecessary. The decision is a useful reminder, when advising a claimant, that the onus to prove need is real and that an exaggerated claim invites judicial scepticism; and, when advising a payer, that a demonstrated history of willing support carries genuine weight in the court’s assessment of what is just.
Questions and Answers
What is the legal basis for an award of spousal maintenance on divorce in South Africa? Section 7 of the Divorce Act. Where the parties agree, section 7(1) allows the court to make an order in accordance with their written agreement; in the absence of agreement, section 7(2) empowers the court to make a just order having regard to the listed factors.
Which factors must a court weigh under section 7(2)? The existing and prospective means of each party, their earning capacities, their financial needs and obligations, their respective ages, the duration of the marriage, the pre-divorce standard of living, the parties’ conduct insofar as it is relevant to the breakdown, and any other factor the court considers relevant.
On whom does the onus rest to prove entitlement to maintenance? On the spouse claiming it. Following the EH case as applied in the STH case, the claimant must establish a need to be supported, and if that need is not proved a maintenance order would not be just.
What is rehabilitative maintenance? Maintenance awarded for a limited period to enable a spouse, typically one who left employment to run the household or care for the children, to be trained or retrained and to become self-supporting, as described in the Kroon case.
What is the “clean break” principle? The principle, recognised in the Beaumont case, that courts should where possible terminate the financial dependence of one spouse on the other completely, while accepting that the facts will not always permit a final severance.
Does the conduct of a spouse affect a maintenance award? It may. Section 7(2) lists conduct insofar as it is relevant to the breakdown. Here the defendant’s alcohol abuse was accepted as the main cause of the breakdown, although the court did not translate this into a punitive award.
How does the marital standard of living feature in the enquiry? The MB case clarifies that maintenance is intended to sustain the claimant’s current, reduced standard of living within the bounds of affordability, not to restore the lifestyle enjoyed during the marriage.
How did the court treat the claimant’s schedule of expenses? It scrutinised the claimed R57,265.21, rejected unrealistic items such as a substantial monthly legal fee and inflated vehicle costs, and fixed a realistic figure of about R42,000.00, leaving a shortfall of roughly R23,000.00 after her salary was taken into account.
Why did the court reject the ten-year period claimed? Because the defendant intended to retire in 2030, which would end his income and his ability to pay, and because the claimant would receive a substantial pension share and had already re-entered employment, rendering a ten-year award excessive.
What is the legal significance of the claimant having left work by joint decision rather than to support the defendant’s career? The court noted this expressly. The reason for leaving employment bears on the equities of the claim; here the decision was a joint one taken in the child’s interests, not to advance the defendant’s occupation, which strengthened the case for some measure of support.
How is pension interest dealt with on divorce? Under section 7(8) of the Divorce Act, a non-member spouse may be awarded a portion of the member spouse’s pension interest. The court confirmed the agreed 50% share in the GEPF and directed the endorsement and payment process, calculated as at the date of the order.
What termination events were built into the maintenance order? The earliest of the defendant’s retirement, the sale of the former matrimonial home, the plaintiff’s remarriage or entry into a new relationship, or the death of either party.
What weight did the court give to a spouse’s willingness to maintain the other? Following the Taute case, a spouse who shows a willingness to maintain the other is treated with greater sympathy, and a claim made on reasonable grounds is received more favourably than an extravagant one. The defendant’s history of generous support told in his favour.
What is the role of expert evidence such as an industrial psychologist in these claims? Such evidence speaks to the claimant’s employability and earning capacity, which are central to whether, and for how long, rehabilitative maintenance is justified. The plaintiff called an industrial psychologist to confirm her employability.
What is the relevance of an order for a contribution towards legal costs? A court may order one party to contribute towards the other’s legal costs to secure a measure of equality of arms in the litigation; here the defendant was ordered to contribute R100,000.00 towards the plaintiff’s trial costs.
Written by Bertus Preller, a Family Law and Divorce Law attorney and Mediator at Maurice Phillips Wisenberg in Cape Town and founder of iDivorce and iANC. A blog, managed by SplashLaw, for more information on Family Law read more here. For free and useful Family Law tech applications visit Maintenance Calculator and Accrual Calculator.
DOWNLOAD THE JUDGEMENT HERE: