The Western Cape High Court grants interim maintenance to a woman after her life partnership ends.
Image: Chat GPT
The Western Cape High Court has ruled that a woman who has ended a long-term relationship with her former partner is entitled to interim maintenance while her claim for ongoing support is finalised.
In granting temporary financial relief, Judge Gayaat Da Silva-Salie emphasised that it is not necessary at this stage to decide whether a legally enforceable life partnership existed with maintenance obligations - a determination that will be reserved for the trial court.
The couple had lived together for 29 years and raised two children, beginning their romantic relationship in 1984 and formalising a life partnership in 1991. The applicant told the court that throughout the relationship they behaved as a married couple.
She said they shared a home, raised their children together, and referred to each other as husband and wife. The respondent even described her as his “lifelong partner” in his will and referred to her as his wife in various documents.
The respondent was the main earner, while the applicant did not work full-time, dedicating herself primarily to caring for the household and children. Over the years, he provided financial support through regular cash payments and directly covering household expenses.
The relationship ended in October 2020. The applicant claims that at the time, the respondent agreed in writing to continue supporting her in line with the pattern established during their partnership. She says he continued payments for about three years before gradually reducing and then stopping them altogether.
She is now seeking interim maintenance, while the respondent wants an order to cease payments. He argued that, since he now resides in Tanzania, the Western Cape court lacks jurisdiction—a claim the court rejected.
Judge Da Silva-Salie noted that the woman had demonstrated the existence of a nearly three-decade relationship, shared children, a shared home, and a public presentation as spouses. It was also clear she relies financially on the respondent.
The judge explained that at this interim stage, the applicant does not need to prove her claim on a balance of probabilities; that will only be required at trial. She highlighted that the applicant faces financial dependence and potential hardship if support is withdrawn, while the respondent had not provided evidence to dispute either his prior support or his ability to pay.
“The deprivation of established maintenance in circumstances of dependency constitutes sufficient apprehension of harm to justify interim protection. The balance of convenience favours the preservation of the status quo pending trial,” Judge Da Silva-Salie said.
She stressed that the court is not being asked to decide definitively whether a terminated life partnership creates a legally enforceable duty of maintenance - that question will be determined at trial.
Cape Times