A South African businessman has lost a legal battle to stop paying maintenance for his former wife’s children after their divorce, with judges ruling that his past conduct created a financial responsibility he could not abruptly abandon.

 

 

The case reached the Supreme Court of Appeal, which struck the man’s appeal from the roll with costs. The decision effectively means he must continue paying R40,000 per month in maintenance for the two teenagers, in addition to medical aid cover and R35,000 monthly towards his former wife’s rent, while the divorce proceedings continue.

 

 

The couple married in April 2018 out of community of property but separated in late 2023. When the wife filed for divorce in early 2024, she asked the court to compel her husband to continue financially supporting her children, aged 14 and 16, even though he was not their biological father.

 

 

 

The woman, a dietician, told the court the children’s biological father contributed about R7,000 per month, but argued that the children had become accustomed to a significantly higher standard of living during the marriage. According to her, the husband had treated the teenagers as his own children, paid their school fees, walked them to school and openly referred to them as part of his family.

 

 

She also said the sudden withdrawal of both financial and emotional support after the separation was distressing for the children, who had become used to what she described as a “soft life”.

 

 

 

 

A key piece of evidence in the case was a message the husband sent to employees when announcing the couple’s separation. In the message, he wrote: “Insofar as our kids go, we have always strived to give them the best in terms of love, time, experience and education. None of this changes in my view and it will certainly continue.”

 

 

He continued: “Finally, I hope you have always seen that I am loving and supportive towards [wife]. This too will continue because that is the person I wish to be. From now on it will just be in a different role or capacity and with a different perspective.”

 

 

The wife’s legal team argued that by referring to the children as “our kids” and promising continued support, the man had effectively assumed parental responsibility for them.

 

 

The businessman contested the claim, arguing he had never adopted the children and that their biological father remained actively involved in their lives. He maintained that any financial assistance he had provided during the marriage was voluntary and temporary.

 

 

 

 

However, the Western Cape High Court previously issued an interim maintenance order in September 2024 requiring him to continue supporting the children financially while the divorce case proceeds. The order also required him to pay R1 million towards his ex-wife’s legal costs.

 

 

He then appealed the ruling to the Supreme Court of Appeal, arguing the high court had wrongly forced a stepfather to pay maintenance when the biological parents were capable of supporting the children.

 

 

Acting Judge of Appeal Avinash Govindjee dismissed the challenge, ruling that the court lacked jurisdiction to hear the matter. He explained that Rule 43 orders, which provide temporary financial relief during divorce proceedings, are specifically designed not to be appealable.

 

 

The court warned that allowing such appeals would delay divorce proceedings and increase legal costs. As a result, the businessman must continue making the payments until the divorce case is finally resolved.