Love, Loss, and Legal Battles: South African Woman’s Hopes Dashed As Court Dismisses Bid for R56K Maintenance From Ex-boyfriend
In a disappointing turn of events, a woman’s hopes to secure R56,000 in spousal maintenance from her former boyfriend were dashed by the Western Cape High Court. The ruling marked the end of a legal battle that shed light on the complexities of long-term relationships and financial obligations.
Love and Financial Support: The Relationship’s Background
The woman, known as EW in court documents, had been in a significant nine-year relationship with VH, the father of her three children.
During the course of their partnership, VH provided approximately R100,000 per month to cover household expenses and upkeep. However, when the relationship ended abruptly in April 2022, the financial support from VH came to an abrupt halt, leaving EW in a precarious position.
Threats and Legal Action: A Desperate Bid for Stability
As the couple had shared a family home funded by a trust under VH’s control, the separation also brought threats of lease cancellation and the potential removal of their children from EW’s custody.
With limited assets and income, EW turned to the courts, seeking legal intervention to secure her financial stability.
Defining the Relationship: Arguments for Continued Support
According to IOL, EW’s argument centered on the claim that their seven-year cohabitation and shared responsibilities resembled a marriage, both in the public eye and in their personal interactions. Despite their separation, EW contended that the nature of their relationship warranted continued financial support.
Divided Verdict: Dissent and Discrimination
In a divided decision, Judges Judith Innes Cloete and Hayley Maud Slingers ruled against EW’s application, dismissing it without imposing any costs. However, Judge Derek Wille expressed dissent, asserting that the dismissal perpetuates unfair discrimination against traditionally marginalized life partners.
Unpacking Unfair Discrimination: Judge Wille’s Critique
Judge Wille’s criticism focused on the power dynamics in such relationships and how they influence entitlement to legal benefits. He contended that the prevailing structure allowed a male partner to dictate the nature of the partnership and, consequently, the distribution of legal privileges.