High Court Orders Divorced Man To Support Stepchildren Financially

A South African man has failed in his bid to be exempted from paying interim maintenance for his estranged wife and her two children while their divorce case is still pending.

The Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) struck the matter from the roll after the man attempted to challenge a High Court ruling ordering him to pay interim maintenance to his wife and her two children during the divorce proceedings.

The SCA said it did not have jurisdiction to hear the appeal because the order being challenged was an interim maintenance order granted under Rule 43. The rule allows courts to provide temporary financial relief to spouses while divorce cases are still ongoing.

The dispute stems from the breakdown of a relationship between the couple, who married in April 2018 out of community of property, subject to the accrual system. Their relationship deteriorated towards the end of 2023, leading to their separation.

In early 2024, the wife filed for divorce at the Western Cape High Court in Cape Town. She also brought an application under Rule 43 seeking interim maintenance for herself and her two minor children from a previous marriage, a contribution towards legal costs, and other financial support while the divorce case remained unresolved.

The husband opposed the application, arguing that he had no legal duty to support the children as he had not adopted them and their biological father remained involved in their lives.

He said both the children’s mother and their biological father were responsible for their upbringing. According to him, any financial support he had provided during the marriage was voluntary and mainly meant to help his wife during difficult financial periods.

The woman told the court that the children continued to have a close relationship with their biological father, who contributed about R7,000 per month towards their maintenance.

She further argued that the children had become used to a high standard of living during the marriage because of the financial support from their stepfather. She also said her estranged had effectively taken on a parental role and treated the children as his own.

In support of her argument, she referred to a message he sent to employees after the separation in which he said he would continue supporting the family and providing for the children, referring to them collectively as “our kids”. In the message, he stated:

“[Insofar] as our kids go, we have always strived to give them the best in terms of love, time, experience and education. None of this changes in my view and it will certainly continue …

“Finally, I hope you have always seen that I am loving and supportive towards [wife]. This too will continue because that is the person I wish to be. From now on, it will just be in a different role or capacity and with a different perspective.”

In September 2024, the High Court ruled in her favour and granted an interim order requiring the husband to pay R40,000 in monthly maintenance, keep the children on his medical aid, cover their medical expenses, pay monthly rent of R35,000, and contribute R1 million towards legal costs.

Unhappy with the decision, the husband approached the SCA, arguing that the High Court had wrongly imposed a duty of support on a stepparent, especially where the children’s biological parents were still capable of supporting them.

He also argued that interim maintenance should not be used to preserve the lifestyle enjoyed during the marriage, but should instead be limited to ensuring basic needs are met.

However, Acting Judge of Appeal Avinash Govindjee, writing for a unanimous bench, said the law generally does not allow appeals against interim maintenance orders granted under Rule 43.

The court explained that such orders are temporary and meant to provide quick and cost-effective relief while divorce proceedings continue.

Allowing appeals against these orders, the court said, would defeat their purpose by causing delays, increasing costs, and encouraging piecemeal litigation.

The judges also pointed out that parties who are unhappy with Rule 43 orders can apply for a variation or reconsideration in the High Court instead of appealing.

After considering the matter, the SCA concluded that the High Court’s ruling was not an appealable decision.

The court therefore ordered that the appeal be struck from the roll with costs.