In a decision that highlights the seriousness of defaulting on maintenance payments, the Western Cape High Court recently granted urgent relief to a wife (‘the applicant’) by finding her husband (‘the respondent’) in contempt of a prior maintenance order issued under Rule 43 in May 2021 – and sentencing him to 240 hours of weekend imprisonment.
S.L. v A.C. concerned a couple who wed under Shariah law and remain in a subsisting but highly acrimonious and dysfunctional civil marriage. They share two minor children who currently reside with the applicant in her deceased sister’s home The respondent was found to have wilfully and in bad faith failed to comply with the Rule 43 order, which required him to pay various monthly expenses for the applicant and their children. This included rental (up to R26 000), TV licence fees, DSTV/Netflix, Wi-Fi, and the applicant’s mobile costs. The applicant’s claim for contempt was based on arrears totalling R43 129.13, including unpaid rental for November and December 2024, amounting to R16 000, and other miscellaneous expenses.
Although the respondent quickly settled the miscellaneous arrears a day before the hearing, the rental remained unpaid. He argued that the applicant, being heir to her late sister’s estate, should not have to pay rental. Firmly rejecting this reasoning, the court noted that the estate, not the applicant, still owned the property and was therefore legally entitled to demand rental until the estate was formally wound up. This was confirmed by supporting affidavits from the estate’s executrix and legal representatives.
The court emphasised that contempt of court involves deliberate disobedience of a lawful order and that non-compliance – absent convincing justification – will be presumed wilful and mala fides. The respondent’s failure to pay rental, despite having the means to do so and a history of similar non-compliance, was deemed contemptuous. Accordingly, he was sentenced to 240 hours of weekend imprisonment, suspended on condition of the payment of arrears within three calendar days of judgment and future compliance.
The respondent counter-claimed by seeking the urgent appointment of a curator ad litem for the children. Dismissing the application, the court found it speculative, unsupported by evidence of harm or neglect, and a potential ploy to gain control over child-related finances. Noting the parties’ ongoing hostility and ‘palpable [aggression]’, the court reminded the couple that their acrimonious dealings may harm their children.
Given that the respondent failed to comply with the Rule 43 order, he was ordered to pay costs on a punitive scale.
At STBB, our family law attorneys have the skills and experience to handle all divorce and separation-related disputes, including Rule 43 applications and intensely contested maintenance claims. For expert legal assistance, contact our professionals at familylaw@stbb.co.za and let us handle your case with the efficiency and care it deserves.
This content is the property of STBB. We encourage the sharing of our content for informational purposes. However, if you wish to copy or reproduce our content on your own platform or website, please ensure that proper credit is given to STBB.
