A South African businessman has recently lost a legal battle, which forces him to continue financially supporting his former wife's children after their divorce. The courts determined that his previous engagement with the family established a financial duty that he cannot simply abandon.
The matter escalated to the Supreme Court of Appeal, which dismissed the man's appeal and ordered him to maintain payments of R40,000 monthly for the support of the couple’s two teenage stepchildren. This amount is in addition to medical coverage and R35,000 each month towards his ex-wife’s rental expenses while the divorce proceedings are ongoing.
The couple married in April 2018 without a community of property agreement but separated in late 2023. Following the divorce filing in early 2024, the wife requested that the court mandate her spouse to continue supporting her children aged 14 and 16, despite him not being their biological father.
According to the woman's assertions, the children’s biological father provided approximately R7,000 monthly, but she indicated that the children had been accustomed to a much higher standard of living throughout their marriage. She detailed how the husband treated the teenagers as his own, covering their educational expenses, accompanying them to school, and publicly acknowledging them as part of his family.
She argued that the abrupt cut-off of both financial and emotional support after their separation would be distressing for the children, who had grown accustomed to a comfortable living situation.
A vital piece of evidence was a message sent by the husband to employees regarding their separation. In this communication, he mentioned: “Regarding our kids, we have consistently aimed to provide them the best in love, time, experiences, and education. This perspective continues.”
He further added, “I hope you recognize my ongoing support and love towards [wife]. This too will persist, albeit in a different role moving forward.”
The wife's legal representatives posited that his references to the children as “our kids” and his promises of continued support indicated he had assumed parental responsibilities for them.
In contrast, the businessman challenged the claim, maintaining that he had not adopted the children and that their biological father remained an active participant in their lives. He insisted that any financial aid he provided during their marriage was purely voluntary and temporary.
Earlier, the Western Cape High Court imposed an interim maintenance order in September 2024, requiring him to continue providing financial support to the children throughout the divorce proceedings. This order also stipulated that he pay R1 million towards his ex-wife’s legal expenses.
He subsequently contested this ruling at the Supreme Court of Appeal, arguing that the high court had made an error by obligating a stepfather to pay maintenance when the biological parents could financially support the children.
Acting Judge of Appeal Avinash Govindjee dismissed his appeal, emphasizing that the court did not possess the authority to consider the matter. He clarified that Rule 43 orders, aimed at offering temporary financial support in divorce cases, are not subject to appeal.
The court expressed that permitting such appeals would prolong divorce processes and escalate legal costs. Consequently, the businessman is required to persist in making maintenance payments until the divorce case reaches a conclusion.
Comments (0)
You must be logged in to comment.
Be the first to comment on this article!