The recent judgment handed down in the Pretoria High Court by Oostehuizen-Senekal AJ.
The applicant sought a retrospective variation of a Rule 43 order, contending he could no longer afford pendente lite maintenance payments due to an alleged change in circumstances. He relied on the respondent’s new employment and increased income to justify the application.
The court found that the respondent’s employment remains provisional, as she is still within a probationary period with no guarantee of permanent employment. This uncertainty precludes any assumption of long-term financial stability. Despite the respondent’s increased income, her position lacks the permanence required to justify reducing the applicant’s financial obligations. The application was deemed unfounded and disproportionate.
The application is dismissed.
J.H.M v L.E.M (116734-2023) [2024] ZAGPPHC 1277 (6 December 2024)