Judge forces divorcing Joburg parents to live together for sake of children in bitter break-up

• Divorcing couple to remain under one roof until divorce is finalised. 
• Father to pay monthly support, bond and household costs. 
• Court criticises poorly prepared affidavits and inflated legal cost claims. 

A South Gauteng High Court judge has refused to order either party in a bitter divorce to vacate the family home, instead directing the couple to continue living together under one roof while co-parenting their children until their divorce is finalised.  

Acting Judge C von Ludwig handed down the ruling in a Rule 43 application, calling on the parents to act in the best interests of their children and share responsibilities despite their broken relationship. 

The couple, who married out of community of property in 2009, have two young sons and an adult daughter who lives with them while pursuing her studies. Both parties made serious accusations against one another, including claims of abuse, alcohol misuse, and emotional instability. Yet both also insisted they were the children’s primary caregivers and sought exclusive occupation of the shared home in Benoni. 

Judge refuses to pick sides over the shared home 

While each party asked the court to evict the other from the home, Judge Von Ludwig made it clear that a Rule 43 application does not permit such relief. In the end, both parties acknowledged they could remain in the house peacefully, occupying separate rooms and co-existing for the children’s sake. 

The judge welcomed this concession and noted that the children appeared happy and stable in the current arrangement. He encouraged both parents to continue sharing parenting duties with a sense of mutual responsibility, while allowing formal care and contact arrangements to follow the proper legal processes. 

The judgment also emphasised that shared living tends to reduce costs compared to maintaining two separate homes. With that in mind, the judge made detailed findings about who should pay for what in the interim. 

Interim support order sets financial ground rules 

The husband, who runs a business and has been covering most household expenses, was ordered to continue paying for the bond, utilities, groceries, medical aid, and various home services such as domestic help, pool maintenance, and security. He must also pay R5 500 per month for each of the minor children, and R6 000 per month for the wife as spousal maintenance. 

While the couple’s adult daughter is currently employed part-time by her grandfather, the judge made provision for additional support should her employment end when she starts full-time tertiary studies in 2026. 

Importantly, the husband was also ordered to contribute R100 000 towards the wife’s legal fees, payable in five monthly instalments. This was despite his claims of financial strain and the applicant’s apparent access to family support. 

Court slams poor legal drafting and inflated costs 

Judge Von Ludwig did not hold back in criticising the wife’s legal team for their lack of clarity, excessive billing, and improper use of Rule 43 procedures. He noted that large parts of the affidavit focused on issues like exclusive residence and the accrual system that had no legal basis under the current circumstances. 

The judge disallowed legal costs related to those aspects, ruling that the applicant’s lawyers may not charge her for work that should never have formed part of the application. He described the drafting as lax and unhelpful to both the court and the opposing party. 

The judgment stands as a reminder that Rule 43 is intended to offer streamlined, temporary relief, not to lay the groundwork for drawn-out battles over issues that must be properly aired during trial. Above all, it reflects a court’s insistence that parents put their children’s needs first, even in the most difficult of separations. 

Rule 43 explained 

Under Rule 43 of the Uniform Rules of Court, a spouse involved in divorce or separation proceedings may apply to the court for interim, or temporary, relief in one or more areas. This includes financial maintenance for themselves and any minor children while the divorce is still pending.  

They may also request temporary custody, meaning care of any minor children, as well as access arrangements that determine when and how the other parent may spend time with the children. Additionally, the applicant can apply for a contribution toward their legal costs related to the divorce or associated matters. These orders are meant to provide short-term support and stability until the final divorce judgment is made. 

Conviction.co.za

Get your news on the go. Click here to follow the Conviction WhatsApp channel.