Court orders man to continue maintaining his ex-partner… for now

2026-03-05 - 11:13

The Western Cape High Court has granted a woman’s application for interim maintenance from her ex-partner pending the finalisation of the main application. The two started a romantic relationship in 1984 and entered into a life partnership in 1991. They lived together and had two children. In court papers, the woman said the couple conducted themselves as spouses in that they cohabited, raised children jointly and referred to one another as husband and wife. She said the man described her as his “lifelong partner” in his will and as his “wife” in other documents. The man was the primary breadwinner. She never had a full-time job during their partnership and devoted herself largely to caring for the household and children. The man supported the family financially for decades, including through regular cash payments and direct payment of household expenses. The couple ended their life partnership in October 2020. The woman alleged in court papers that upon deciding to end the partnership, the man promised in writing to continue maintaining her as he had during their partnership. She further claimed that the man kept this promise for three years after their partnership ended. ALSO READ: You can claim maintenance from your sibling – here’s what you need to know After three years, the man reduced his contribution and eventually stopped certain payments. The woman approached the court in the main application to compel him to keep his promise to financially support her, also arguing that partners in a permanent life partnership have a duty to support each other. Pending the outcome of this main application, she asked the Western Cape High Court to compel him to financially support her. Maintenance objections An interim order was granted by agreement on 2 December 2025, providing for certain payments pending the return date. However, the man is now resisting the continuation and expansion of this relief. He elected not to deliver an answering affidavit but instead raised legal objections. One of the objections is that he resides in Tanzania and that the court lacks jurisdiction. He further contended that the present application is rendered “academic” by virtue of the woman’s indication that she intends to amend her particulars of claim. ALSO READ: Will my husband’s mistress benefit from his policies? Both objections were dismissed. “Until such time as an amendment is formally effected in accordance with the rules, the pleadings stand as they presently exist and the court is obliged to determine interlocutory relief on that basis. A stated intention to amend does not suspend proceedings, nor does it deprive this court of jurisdiction to grant interim relief,” said judge Gayaat Da Silva Salie. “In any event, the respondent has not demonstrated that the contemplated amendment would extinguish the applicant’s cause of action or occasion him prejudice. The enquiry before this court remains whether, on the case as currently formulated, the applicant has established a prima facie right warranting interim protection pending trial. “During the hearing of this matter, counsel for the applicant indicated that the intended amendment would be in respect of the respondent’s pension fund proceeds.” ‘Financially dependent’ The judge noted the woman’s argument that she is financially dependent and that the cessation of maintenance places her at risk of hardship and inability to meet ongoing obligations. Further, the man did not place evidence before the court to dispute either his historical pattern of support or his capacity to pay. “The deprivation of established maintenance in circumstances of dependency constitutes sufficient apprehension of harm to justify interim protection. The respondent historically maintained the applicant. An interim order was previously granted by agreement. There is no evidence that compliance with interim maintenance would occasion him irreparable prejudice,” said the judge. “By contrast, refusal of interim relief may expose the applicant to immediate financial vulnerability.” The court was not asked to rule on whether life partners are legally obligated to maintain each other beyond their relationship. It was asked to rule on whether the woman had established entitlement to interim relief. “She has,” said the judge. The man was ordered to continue with maintenance pending the finalisation of the main case. READ NEXT: ‘We are coming for you’ – Simelane signs MOU to restrict credit for child maintenance defaulters