28/05/2026 Bertus Preller Alimony, Clean Break Principle, Divorce, Maintenance, Maintenance termination, Matrimonial Properties Act, Matrimonial Property Act 88 of 1984, Pension Funds, Post-divorce maintenance, Rehabilitative maintenance, Section 7(2) maintenance, Spousal Maintenance accrual system, Antenuptial Contract, clean break principle, conduct of parties, contribution towards costs, CPI escalation, Divorce Act 70 of 1979, divorce South Africa, duration of marriage, earning capacity, employability, Family Law, financial needs and obligations, GEPF, industrial psychologist, Maintenance Order, marital standard of living, matrimonial property, Matrimonial Property Act 88 of 1984, onus to prove need, pendente lite maintenance, pension interest, rehabilitative maintenance, retirement, Section 7(2), section 7(8), spousal maintenance, stay-at-home spouse, termination of maintenance When the Money Must Stop: Rehabilitative Maintenance and the Clean Break in M.I.B (born H[…]) v D.B (2023-079189) [2026] ZAGPPHC 411 (2 May 2026). M.I.B (born H) v D.B (2023-079189) ZAGPPHC 411 (2 May 2026) This judgment of Smit AJ in the Gauteng Division, Pretoria, is a useful working example of how a court… READ MORE
12/04/2026 Bertus Preller Child born outside marriage, Child Maintenance, Children, Divorce, In Community of Property, Maintenance Court, Maintenance order enforcement, Rule 43, Rule 43 orders, Spousal Maintenance child born outside marriage, community of property divorce, costs in the divorce, divorce litigation South Africa, divorce proceedings South Africa, EH v SH, extra-marital child maintenance, family law South Africa, Forfeiture of benefits, Gauteng High Court, interim maintenance, interlocutory divorce relief, joint estate, joint property income, maintenance duty stepchild, minor child support, NM v BM, pendente lite maintenance, pendente lite relief, rental income divorce, Reyneke v Reyneke, Rule 43, Rule 43 limitations, South African divorce law, spousal maintenance, step-parent maintenance duty, trial court jurisdiction, Uniform Rules of Court, ZAGPJHC When Love Goes Wrong and the Law Says No: The Limits of Rule 43 and a Husband’s Failed Bid for Maintenance and Rental Income — C.M.N v N.N (2025/177461) [2026] ZAGPJHC 320 (31 March 2026). The Facts: An Unemployed Husband, an Extra-Marital Child, and a Contested Rental Income This is an opposed application brought in terms of Rule 43 of the Uniform Rules of Court… READ MORE
29/06/2025 Bertus Preller Best Interests of the Child, Child Bullying, Children, Children's Court, Costs, Curator Ad Litem, Divorce, Guardianship, Joint Decision Making, Maintenance, Parental Alienation, Parental Rights, Rule 43, Spousal Maintenance A.W.F v K.S.R, best interests of the child, blended family parental rights, care of minor children, child maintenance South Africa, Children’s Act sections 23 and 24, contested divorce interim relief, curator ad litem, divorce maintenance case, family law judgment, financial disclosure form, financial obligations in divorce, High Court Pretoria, High Court Rule 43 order, interim contact orders, interim divorce relief, Johannesburg family law, legal rights of stepparents, Parental Responsibilities, pendente lite maintenance, racial allegations in custody, Rule 43 legal principles, Rule 43 South Africa, shared custody rights, sibling bond divorce, spousal maintenance application, urgent contact disputes, vulnerable spouse, ZAGPPHC 503 Parental Rights, Spousal Support, and Racial Allegations: Inside A.W.F v K.S.R (052216/2024) [2025] ZAGPPHC 503 (16 May 2025) and the Rule 43 Balancing Act. The Factual Matrix: Disputed Care, Contact, and Maintenance in a Rule 43 Application In A.W.F v K.S.R (052216/2024) ZAGPPHC 503 (16 May 2025), the applicant approached the Gauteng Division of… READ MORE