- Retrenchment slashed the father’s income while his court ordered obligations still totalled more than R62 000 per month, leaving him unable to comply.
- The court ruled this was a material change in circumstances under Rule 43(6) and said the existing order was “totally inadequate” for his new earnings.
- Child maintenance was reduced to R6 000 and spousal maintenance to R4 000 pendente lite, with costs reserved for the trial court.
A KwaZulu-Natal father who lost his job and watched his income shrink has convinced the High Court in Pietermaritzburg that he simply cannot survive under a court order demanding more than R62 000 a month in maintenance and household costs.
Judge PC Bezuidenhout reduced both child and spousal maintenance after concluding that the existing order was mathematically and practically impossible to meet.
From the outset, the judge accepted that the father’s situation had fundamentally changed. “The change in income is indeed a change in the circumstances,” the court said, confirming that Rule 43(6) allows variation where finances collapse.
The numbers simply did not work
The original interim order placed nearly every expense on the father. He had to pay maintenance for two children in the sum of R15 545.67, maintenance for his wife of R12 189.00, keep the children on medical aid at R7 411.00, pay school fees of R8 474.00 (R4 608.00 and R3 865.00), utilities of R7 400.00, and the bond of R11 000.00. When the figures were added together, the total came to about R62 030.00 per month.
But after being retrenched and later reemployed at a lower salary, his net income dropped sharply. His new payslip showed about R47 852.71 per month after tax, and if medical aid and retirement contributions are deducted as previously, his net income drops further to R28 652.00. There is no indication that he receives any bonus at his new job.
After analysing the evidence, the court did not mince words. “It is therefore clear from an analysis of the salary of Applicant and the expenses which he is to pay in terms of the Rule 43 order that his salary is totally inadequate to provide for and that he is not able with his present salary to pay such amounts.”
Even removing the bond from the equation did not save the order. “The present monthly maintenance to be paid in respect of the children and his wife together with the school fees, medical aid and utilities, excluding the bond amount to R51 029.67 per month. That by itself exceeds the salary which he receives.” In short, the father owed more than he earned.
Court rejects technical objection
The mother argued that he should not be allowed to revisit the order because he had not opposed the original Rule 43 application, and it had been granted in default. The court disagreed, pointing out that Rule 43(6) exists precisely for situations like this.
“It is in my view clear that Applicant has established from the documentation and what has been set out above that he is indeed unable to pay the amounts, especially in light of his changed circumstances and that accordingly there is a need for a reduction.”
A call for realism and shared effort
While emphasising that children must be maintained, the court said reality cannot be ignored when one income must now support two separate households.
“It must also be considered that the parties have to amend their standard of living as two households now have to be maintained,” Judge Bezuidenhout wrote.
The judge also addressed the respondent’s unemployment directly, noting that both children were at school and adding that “she should make a concerted effort to find employment.”
A workable order
To reach a figure the father could realistically meet, the judge recalculated the payments. Reducing the children’s maintenance to R6 000 and the spouse’s to R4 000 brought the total monthly burden for maintenance, school fees, medical aid and utilities to about R44 296.00.
“He receives R47 852.71 per month. This would leave him with an amount of R3 556.71 per month for himself,” the court said.
The judge made clear that an order must be sustainable, not punitive. Rather than set the father up for default, the court crafted one that could actually be paid.
The maintenance reduction now applies pendente lite, while the divorce action continues, with costs reserved for the trial court.
Get your news on the go. Click here to follow the Conviction WhatsApp channel.
