We use cookies to improve your browsing experience. By continuing to visit this site, you agree to our use of cookies.

Family and Divorce law in South Africa - A Comprehensive Guide
  • Home
  • Divorce
    • The Reasons for Divorce
    • The Divorce Process in South Africa
    • Rule 41A Mediation
    • The Marital Property Regimes >
      • Marriage out of Community of Property, new case
      • Marriage in Community of Property
      • Marriage out of community without accrual >
        • Understanding Post-1984 Marriages
      • Marriage out of community with the inclusion of the accrual
      • Anti-Dissipation Interdicts Divorce
      • Universal Partnerships
      • Antenuptial Contracts
      • Register Antenuptial Contract Online
      • Changing your matrimonial regime.
      • Postnuptial Contracts
    • Division of Assets at Divorce >
      • Forfeiture of Assets in a Divorce
    • Evicting your spouse divorce
    • Retirement Funds and Divorce
    • Living Annuities
    • Hiding Assets in a Divorce
    • Trusts and Divorce >
      • Can I hide assets in Trust?
    • Divorce a Missing Spouse
    • Adultery and Suing a Third Party
    • Domicile in Divorce Cases
    • International Divorces in South Africa
    • Expat South African Divorce
    • International Jurisdiction
    • Spousal Visas
    • International Divorce Law >
      • UK Divorce Laws
    • Choosing a Divorce Attorney
    • On-line Divorce
    • Lawyer Fees and Costs
    • Important Aspects of a Divorce
    • Divorcing a Narcistic Spouse
    • Dealing with Emotions During Divorce and Separation
    • Divorce Statistics
    • Divorce Therapy and Counselling >
      • Marriage and Relationship Therapists
    • Rebuilding Your Financial Life
    • Divorce Attorney Cape Town
    • Ingredients of a successful relationship
    • What are the elements of a successful marriage?
    • Uncontested Divorce
    • Uncontested Divorce - What Happens on the Court Day?
  • Maintenance
    • Spousal maintenance
    • How to calculate Child Maintenance?
    • Maintenance Defaulters
    • What Happens if you don't pay child maintenance
    • Child Maintenance Frequently Asked Questions
    • Rule 43 Interim Maintenance Pending Divorce >
      • Can I appeal a Rule 43 Order
      • Apply for Costs in Rule 43
      • Financial Disclosure Rule 43
      • Rule 43 Maintenance
    • The Maintenance Manual
    • Grand Parents and Maintenance
    • Variation of Maintenance due to loss of employment
    • Contempt of Court Maintenance
  • Children
    • Section 28 of the Children's Act
    • Relocation and Child Abduction >
      • Frequently Asked Questions about Child Relocation
      • Child Relocation to New Zealand
    • The Hague Convention >
      • Child Participation in South African Family Law and the Hague Convention
      • International Child Custody Law South Africa
      • Hague Applications and Domestic Violence
      • Mirror Orders and the Hague Convention
      • Tips on international child custody
    • Unmarried Parents and the Law
    • Unmarried Fathers Rights
    • Parenting Plans >
      • Parenting Plan
      • Conflict and dispute-resolution mechanisms
    • The non-custodian parent and contact
    • Appointing a Guardian in a Will
    • Introducing a new partner to your child
    • Refusal of Contact
    • Suspending Parental Rights
    • The Law on Grandparents Rights over Children
    • Parental Alienation >
      • Alienating Children
      • Parental Alienation Imprisonment
      • What is the effect of Parental Alienation on children?
    • Living Arrangements
    • What effect does divorce have on children?
    • The Voice of the Child in Divorce
    • Facilitation
    • Joint decisions about your child
    • Paternity Disputes
    • The Family Advocate
    • Parenting during separartion
    • Children's Act 38 of 2005
  • Abuse
    • Domestic Violence Legislation and Case Law
    • The New Domestic Violence Act 14 of 2021
    • Gender Based Violence in South Africa
    • Domestic Abuse Forms
    • Evicting a Spouse
    • Being married to a Narcissist.
    • Divorcing an Abusive Spouse
    • What is Coercive Control?
    • What is Emotional Abuse
    • What is Sexual Abuse
    • What is Financial Abuse >
      • Economic Abuse
    • What is Stalking
    • What is Verbal Abuse
    • What is Spiritual Abuse
    • What is Social Abuse
    • Revenge Porn
    • Interdict Intimate photos
    • Steps to obtain a Protection Order
    • Domestic Violence eBook
    • The Protection Order
    • Who Qualifies for a Protection Order
    • Breaching a Protection Order
    • Questions on Domestic Abuse
    • Signs of an Abusive Relationship
    • Domestic Violence Information
    • Harassment >
      • Harassment Forms
  • Cohabitation
    • Universal Partnerships in South African Cohabitation
    • Maintenance and Cohabitation
    • Interim Maintenance and Cohabitation
    • Sample Cohabitation Agreement
    • Engagement and the law
  • Formalities for marriage in south africa
    • South Africa's New Marriage Bill: A Step Towards Equality and Inclusion
    • Same Sex
  • Family Law eBooks
  • Family Law Links
    • The South African Court System
    • Court Rolls
    • Family Law Legislation
    • Family Law Blog
    • New Family Law Cases
    • Register for the Online Family Law Course
  • About the Author
  • Contact
  • Charities

Defective Rule 43 Applications


In the case of MTC versus CMC - Case Number 5430/2020 in the Cape Town High Court, MAGONA, Acting Judge dismissed a husband's Rule 43 application against his wife, with costs.

A.    INTRODUCTION

In a Rule 43 application, the Applicant (husband) sought:

  • maintenance pendente lite, in the sum of R55 670.00 per month;
  • a contribution towards the Applicant’s costs in the divorce action in the amount of R75 600.00; and
  • the costs of the application.

The Respondent (wife) submitted that the application was without merit and should have been dismissed with costs.

The Respondent denied the veracity of the contents of the Applicant’s founding affidavit. The Applicant had chosen to not fully disclose information and misrepresented facts. There was a scarcity of information regarding his financial circumstances and he made misrepresentations and material non-disclosures that skewed the facts.

The Applicant's application was dismissed with costs.

B.    THE RULE 43

The Applicant, a businessman, launched the application, notwithstanding the fact that the Respondent was a pensioner, with multiple severe and life- threatening medical conditions. The Respondent was declared permanently disabled in 2013 and was unemployed and unable to work. The Respondents’ daughter (who also suffered from an auto immune disease) and grandchildren, were financially dependent on the Respondent.

In the divorce proceedings, which the Applicant instituted against the Respondent, the Applicant did not seek maintenance from the Respondent.

In the unreported decision of GB v DS in the Gauteng Local Division High Court (16/08/2018) under case number 16158/16, page 4 paragraph 9. 

Keightley, J stated as follows:

“… this claim [for interim maintenance] must be evaluated against the purpose of Rule 43. The purpose has been stated as follows:

“Primarily Rule 43 was envisaged to provide temporary assistance for women, who had given up their careers or potential career for the sake of matrimony with or without maternity, until such time as at a trial and after hearing evidence maintenance claims … could be properly determined. It was not created to give an interim meal-ticket to women who clearly at trial would not be able to establish a right to maintenance. The grey area between the two extremes causes problems.”


and further that:

“… the Rule is designed to provide interim cover to the spouse who has been financially dependent on the other spouse, because of their particular marital circumstances, and who thus has a genuine need for such support to continue until the matter is finally dealt with on divorce. This being the case, a claim for interim maintenance would normally be accompanied by a claim for maintenance on divorce. In the absence of such a claim, the implication is that the critical requirement of financial dependency on the other spouse, which underpins the application for interim maintenance, is missing….”

“Mr B [the Applicant] does not explain why he failed to date to claim personal maintenance on divorce….. Mr B does not place facts before the court to show that he was financially dependent on Mr S [the Respondent] during the course of the marriage, and that he will have a claim to maintenance on divorce. Thus, in my view, Mr B has failed to establish that his claim for interim maintenance meets the basic requirements of Rule 43 in this important respect. His claim for maintenance falls to be dismissed on this basis alone.”


As stated, the Applicant did not claim maintenance in the divorce action. In truth and in fact, the Applicant was not financially dependent on the Respondent during the course of the marriage. This, it was submitted, was a concession by the Applicant that he does not need the Respondent’s financial support and that the Respondent did not owe him any duty of support.

Accordingly, it was submitted, that the Applicant’s claim fell to be dismissed on that basis alone. 

C.    MATERIAL NON-DISCLOSURES

As will appear more fully from the legal authorities set out below, material non-disclosures in a Rule 43 application are of the utmost importance.

It was submitted that the Applicant was guilty of the following material non-disclosures, namely that:-

  • he failed to disclose to the Court that the Respondent was a very sick women and that she had been permanently disabled since 2013;
  • the Applicant failed to disclose to the Court that the Respondent had not been employed for many years and was incapable of being employed;
  • the Applicant failed to disclose that he conducted a business until at least January 2020 and perhaps longer but misled the Court by stating that he was unable to secure employment since July 2019.
  • he failed to disclose to the Court that he had a considerable asset base; and
  • he did not explain how he managed to maintain himself since being unemployed in July 2019.

D.    UNDISPUTED FACTS

The following facts, were common cause between the parties, namely that:

  • the parties were married to each other on 10 August 2013, out community of property, with the inclusion of the accrual system;
  • there were no children born of the marriage;
  • the parties have not lived together since 2016; and
  • the Applicant instituted divorce proceedings against the Respondent in July 2017 and made no claim to maintenance for himself.

E.    THE RESPONDENT’S MEDICAL CONDITIONS 

The Respondent suffered from multiple health conditions, including a heart condition, osteoporosis, Addison’s Disease, and auto immune diseases. In addition:

  • in 2011, the Respondent was fitted with a permanent pacemaker as a result of heart conditions from which she suffered. As a result of complications and excruciating pain, the Respondent had to undergo several further surgeries and the pacemaker was subsequently surgically removed.
  • in July 2013, the Respondent had a labrum tear on her left hip which required surgery in order to repair.
  • in December 2013, the Respondent was declared permanently disabled and consequently, the Respondent was unable to work and has since been unemployed.
  • in February 2015, the Respondent underwent decompression surgery whilst she was living with the Applicant in Kuwait. As a result of this major back surgery, the Respondent was not able to fly for 3 months.

Notwithstanding the fact the Respondent was declared permanently disabled merely 4 months after the parties married each other, and the abovementioned medical procedures were performed either prior to, or during, the course of the marriage, the Applicant persisted in stating that:

“although I do not know where she [the Respondent] is currently employed, I have no doubt she is generating a substantial income.” 

This latter statement was to the knowledge of the Applicant, not true, as he was well aware that Respondent could not be employed. In fact, the Applicant maintained the Respondent subsequent to their separation, for a short period in 2016, due to the Respondent’s ill-health.

F.    LAW ON FALSE DISCLOSURE / NON-DICLOSURE BY THE APPLICANT

In Du Preez v Du Preez 2009 (6) SA 28 (T) at 32C-H, it was held that:

“…there is a tendency for parties in rule 43 applications, acting expeditiously or strategically, to misstate the true nature of their financial affairs. It is not unusual for parties to exaggerate their expenses and to understate their income…To my mind the practice is distasteful, unacceptable, and should be censured. Such conduct, whatever the motivation behind it, is dishonourable and should find no place in judicial proceedings…Should such conduct occur in rule 43 proceedings at the instance of the applicant, then relief should be denied.”

and further that:

“A misstatement of one aspect of relevant information invariably will color other aspects with the possible (or likely) result that fairness will not be done. Consequently, I would assume there is a duty on applicants in Rule 43 applications seeking equitable redress to act with the utmost good faith… and to disclose fully and all material information regarding their financial affairs. Any false disclosure or material non-disclosure would mean that he or she is not before the court with “clean hands” and on that ground alone the court will be justified in refusing relief.”

Respondent’s counsel submitted that the Applicant was, guilty of conduct referred to in the Du Preez case supra, as will appear below.

The Applicant claimed to be unemployed. He further claimed that he had been unable to secure permanent employment since his contract on the Finland/Russian border, expired in July 2019. However, the Applicant’s personal LinkedIn profile painted a different picture. Firstly, it shows that the Applicant’s contract terminated in January 2020, some 6 months after the date alleged by him. Second, it demonstrated that the Applicant was not actually unemployed but, in fact, that he set up a retail consultancy business in “December 2019 – present”. On the basis of the false disclosure of this material fact, it was submitted, the application had to be dismissed, on this basis as well.

In TS v TS 2018 (3) 572 (GJ) at 15 Spilg, J emphasized the importance of financial disclosure during Rule 43 proceedings and stated that:

“Without the requirements of a proper disclosure, and possibly the utilization of oral evidence in appropriate cases, rule 43 proceedings favour the unscrupulous party or the one who takes advantage of a practice that does not insist on up-front disclosure of the true state of financial affairs.”

The Applicant claimed to have exhausted all of his savings and to have no funds to cover his living expenses. Furthermore, the Applicant claimed to have no income, savings or realizable assets. Conspicuous by its absence, was that the Applicant's personal bank statements which, it was submitted, pointed to the absence of full and frank disclosure of vital financial information on the part of the Applicant, which was inherent in proceedings relating to maintenance.

Gorven AJA, as cited in ST v CT 2018 (5) SA 479 SCA at 492 – 493, held that:

“39. The attitude of many divorce parties, particularly in relation to money claims where they control the money, can be characterised as “catch me if you can”. These parties set themselves up as immovable objects in the hope that they will wear down the other party. They use every means to do so. They fail to discover properly, fail to provide any particulars of assets within their peculiar knowledge and generally delay and obfuscate in the hope that they will not be “caught” and have to disgorge what is in law due to the other party.

[40] The conduct of the trial … appears to have been run by the defendant on a ‘catch me if you can ’ basis…. He delayed providing what were obviously relevant documents until the last minute and then did not discover them. He declined to provide any documents concerning the financial position of Full House Taverns. He did not provide documents which could be used to trace assets derived from the excluded assets. He did not prove that documents relating to the Trust were furnished timeously or at all pursuant to a subpoena duces tecum after initially claiming that he could not furnish these without the consent of his co- trustees. He inexplicably did not testify and then took a technical point concerning documentary proof. [41] This approach of the defendant deserves censure. In my view, it may have warranted a punitive costs order at the trial.”


The Applicant, furthermore, failed to even list his assets and liabilities and the principles set out in the above case were applicable to this application. This demonstrated the lack of bona fides on part of the Applicant. Suspiciously and rather significantly, when the Applicant was called upon to make discovery in terms of Rule 35(1), the only documentation discovered by the Applicant was correspondence between attorneys. If regard is had to the conduct of the Applicant, the only reasonable inference that could be drawn, it was submitted, was that the Applicant’s financial position, as portrayed by him in this application, was not a true reflection of his actual financial position and that he did not in fact, require the financial support of the Respondent. Accordingly, it was submitted that the Applicant’s application was without merit and was not brought in good faith.

G.    APPLICANT’S MONTHLY EXPENSES

The Applicant claimed his monthly expenses amount to  R55 670.00. Significantly, not a single item or expense was supported by any supporting document. Furthermore, the Applicant claimed to spend R2 000.00 a month on clothing which, it was submitted, was extravagant for a person who claimed to be unemployed and had “no income, no savings and no realisable assets.” Brazenly, the Applicant further claimed an amount of R17 300.00 in respect of child maintenance for his child born from his previous marriage, who resides in the United States with his ex-wife. It was submitted that there was no legal duty on the Respondent to support the Applicant’s child born of his previous marriage. 

H.    FINANCIAL POSITION OF THE RESPONDENT

The last income the Respondent received was in 2014 when she received a retrenchment package from Old Mutual. The Respondent’s daughter was unemployed due to an auto immune disease and the COVID-19 pandemic. The Respondent was now “saddled” with the financial burden of having to meet her daughter’s financial obligations, in addition to her own, until such time as her daughter was able to return to work without potentially being exposed to the COVID-19 virus.

The Respondent’s monthly income consisted of approximately R6 000.00 rental income and R25 000.00 which she drew from her investment account. The Respondent relied on this income to meet her own household and medical expenses and to support her daughter and her grandchildren. The Respondent made use of her credit card to fund what she could.

The Respondent’s monthly expenses amounted to R48 759.80. Having regard to the Respondent’s income and financial obligations, it was clear that she was hardly able to meet her own expenses on a monthly basis. 

I.     APPLICANT’S FAILURE TO DEAL WITH ALLEGATIONS N REPLY 

In the Respondent’s opposing affidavit, she averred that:

  • less than 3 years ago, the Applicant, and his girlfriend, travelled across the world, visiting the USA several times, South Africa at least twice and various European countries.
  • the Applicant and his girlfriend enjoyed luxurious holidays spent at the Bandos Resort in the Maldives and stayed at opulent hotels such as the St Regis, where rooms cost in excess of R5 000.00 per person, per night;
  • the Applicant, during the course of their marriage, had investments in Zurich, amounting to, at one stage, R800 000.00, a Preservation Plan, a Indemnity worth approximately R988 113.00 and various other investments. Over and above this, the Respondent averred that the Applicant owned a Toyota Land Cruiser, Mercedes Benz, a Sea Ray boat and a Yamaha jet ski;
  • the Applicant, in the past, earned close to R300 000.00 per month.

It was clear that the Respondent raised, in her opposing affidavit, material allegations to which the Applicant ought, but failed to answer in reply. These allegations “cried out” for a reply by the Applicant and the failure to answer them lead to the inescapable inference that they were true.

The approach of our Courts, both in ordinary motion proceedings and in Rule 43 proceedings, is that material allegations ought to be answered with the leave of the Court. See Sigaba v Minister of Defence and Police and Another; 1980 (3) SA 535 (T) at 550F. Pretoria Portland Cement Co Ltd v Competition Commission; 2003 (2) SA 385 (SCA) at 409G. Tantoush v Refugee Appeal Board and Others; 2008 (1) SA 232 (TPD) at 250B-E, Thint (Pty) Ltd v National Director of Public Prosecutions and Others; Zuma and Another v National Director of Public Prosecutions and Others. 2009(1) SA 1 (CC) at 124I-125B. This principle has been extended to Rule 43 applications. See SP v HP 2009(5) SA 223 (O).

J.    CONTRIBUTION TO COSTS

In regard to the question of a contribution towards costs, it was stated in Smalberger v Smalberger: 1948 (2) SA 309 (O):

“The exact basis upon which a wife married out of community of property can demand a contribution towards the costs of the matrimonial suit is not clear… but there is nevertheless ample authority for the proposition that she can do so if she is destitute or where she has no separate estate of her own, or where she has not the necessary funds, provided that she further satisfies the court that she has a prima facie case if the plaintiff or a bona fide defense if the defendant and that the husband is in a position to provide such a contribution.”

It was submitted that the Applicant failed to make out a prima facie case for a contribution to costs and he was not entitled to the relief sought by him. To make out a prima facie case, the Applicant ought to have shown, firstly, a duty of support, second, a need to be supported and third, adequate resources on the part of the Respondent to support him. It was submitted that the Applicant failed on all three counts.

APPEARANCES
 
For the Applicant:
 
Mr Simon Dippenaar - Attorney
Simon Dippenaar & Ass Inc. Adv Larina Venter
 
For the Respondent:
 
Mr Bertus Preller - Attorney - Maurice Phillips Wisenberg
Adv Brian Pincus SC

Main Menu

Cohabitation and Living Together
Engagement and the Law
Formalities of Marriage in South Africa
Same-Sex Relationships
Unmarried Parents and Children
Parental Rights and Responsibilities
Care and Contact (Custody) of Children
Divorce In South Africa
Divorce Process in South Africa
Division of Assets in Divorce
Divorce and Retirement Funds
Rule 43 and Interim Maintenance
Divorce a Missing Spouse
Adultery, Suing a Third Party
International Divorces in South African Courts
Parental Rights
Child Maintenance
Spousal Maintenance
Domestic Violence and Abuse

Family and Divorce Law Links

Family Law Links
Family Law Legislation

Family Law Matters
Court Judgements
Court Rolls

Online Services

Online DIY Divorce
Online Managed Divorce
Online Antenuptial Contracts
​Divorce Online
​Book A Lawyer
​

Partner Services

Family Law Mediation
Collaborative Divorce
Divorce Attorney Cape Town

Contact Details

​MAURICE PHILLIPS WISENBERG
20th Floor, 2 Long  Street, Cape Town, 8001, South Africa
Telephone: +27 21 419 7115
Email: familylaw(@)mpw.co.za​


​
Email: familylaw@mpw.co.za
Facebook: divorceattorneys
Twitter: @bertuspreller

Family and Divorce Law Blogs

Divorce Attorney 
​Family Laws

© 2025 -  All content on this website is under copyright of  SplashLaw- All Rights Reserved.
Legal Notices
  • Home
  • Divorce
    • The Reasons for Divorce
    • The Divorce Process in South Africa
    • Rule 41A Mediation
    • The Marital Property Regimes >
      • Marriage out of Community of Property, new case
      • Marriage in Community of Property
      • Marriage out of community without accrual >
        • Understanding Post-1984 Marriages
      • Marriage out of community with the inclusion of the accrual
      • Anti-Dissipation Interdicts Divorce
      • Universal Partnerships
      • Antenuptial Contracts
      • Register Antenuptial Contract Online
      • Changing your matrimonial regime.
      • Postnuptial Contracts
    • Division of Assets at Divorce >
      • Forfeiture of Assets in a Divorce
    • Evicting your spouse divorce
    • Retirement Funds and Divorce
    • Living Annuities
    • Hiding Assets in a Divorce
    • Trusts and Divorce >
      • Can I hide assets in Trust?
    • Divorce a Missing Spouse
    • Adultery and Suing a Third Party
    • Domicile in Divorce Cases
    • International Divorces in South Africa
    • Expat South African Divorce
    • International Jurisdiction
    • Spousal Visas
    • International Divorce Law >
      • UK Divorce Laws
    • Choosing a Divorce Attorney
    • On-line Divorce
    • Lawyer Fees and Costs
    • Important Aspects of a Divorce
    • Divorcing a Narcistic Spouse
    • Dealing with Emotions During Divorce and Separation
    • Divorce Statistics
    • Divorce Therapy and Counselling >
      • Marriage and Relationship Therapists
    • Rebuilding Your Financial Life
    • Divorce Attorney Cape Town
    • Ingredients of a successful relationship
    • What are the elements of a successful marriage?
    • Uncontested Divorce
    • Uncontested Divorce - What Happens on the Court Day?
  • Maintenance
    • Spousal maintenance
    • How to calculate Child Maintenance?
    • Maintenance Defaulters
    • What Happens if you don't pay child maintenance
    • Child Maintenance Frequently Asked Questions
    • Rule 43 Interim Maintenance Pending Divorce >
      • Can I appeal a Rule 43 Order
      • Apply for Costs in Rule 43
      • Financial Disclosure Rule 43
      • Rule 43 Maintenance
    • The Maintenance Manual
    • Grand Parents and Maintenance
    • Variation of Maintenance due to loss of employment
    • Contempt of Court Maintenance
  • Children
    • Section 28 of the Children's Act
    • Relocation and Child Abduction >
      • Frequently Asked Questions about Child Relocation
      • Child Relocation to New Zealand
    • The Hague Convention >
      • Child Participation in South African Family Law and the Hague Convention
      • International Child Custody Law South Africa
      • Hague Applications and Domestic Violence
      • Mirror Orders and the Hague Convention
      • Tips on international child custody
    • Unmarried Parents and the Law
    • Unmarried Fathers Rights
    • Parenting Plans >
      • Parenting Plan
      • Conflict and dispute-resolution mechanisms
    • The non-custodian parent and contact
    • Appointing a Guardian in a Will
    • Introducing a new partner to your child
    • Refusal of Contact
    • Suspending Parental Rights
    • The Law on Grandparents Rights over Children
    • Parental Alienation >
      • Alienating Children
      • Parental Alienation Imprisonment
      • What is the effect of Parental Alienation on children?
    • Living Arrangements
    • What effect does divorce have on children?
    • The Voice of the Child in Divorce
    • Facilitation
    • Joint decisions about your child
    • Paternity Disputes
    • The Family Advocate
    • Parenting during separartion
    • Children's Act 38 of 2005
  • Abuse
    • Domestic Violence Legislation and Case Law
    • The New Domestic Violence Act 14 of 2021
    • Gender Based Violence in South Africa
    • Domestic Abuse Forms
    • Evicting a Spouse
    • Being married to a Narcissist.
    • Divorcing an Abusive Spouse
    • What is Coercive Control?
    • What is Emotional Abuse
    • What is Sexual Abuse
    • What is Financial Abuse >
      • Economic Abuse
    • What is Stalking
    • What is Verbal Abuse
    • What is Spiritual Abuse
    • What is Social Abuse
    • Revenge Porn
    • Interdict Intimate photos
    • Steps to obtain a Protection Order
    • Domestic Violence eBook
    • The Protection Order
    • Who Qualifies for a Protection Order
    • Breaching a Protection Order
    • Questions on Domestic Abuse
    • Signs of an Abusive Relationship
    • Domestic Violence Information
    • Harassment >
      • Harassment Forms
  • Cohabitation
    • Universal Partnerships in South African Cohabitation
    • Maintenance and Cohabitation
    • Interim Maintenance and Cohabitation
    • Sample Cohabitation Agreement
    • Engagement and the law
  • Formalities for marriage in south africa
    • South Africa's New Marriage Bill: A Step Towards Equality and Inclusion
    • Same Sex
  • Family Law eBooks
  • Family Law Links
    • The South African Court System
    • Court Rolls
    • Family Law Legislation
    • Family Law Blog
    • New Family Law Cases
    • Register for the Online Family Law Course
  • About the Author
  • Contact
  • Charities