Courts & Legal
High Court cuts father’s maintenance from R7,500 to R2,000 after calculation errors
When a maintenance order jumps from R4,250 to R7,500 within months, most parents would feel the pressure instantly. That is exactly what happened to a Cape Town father who turned to the courts, arguing that something did not add up.
This week, the Western Cape High Court agreed.
In a ruling that is already stirring debate among family law circles, the court reduced his monthly maintenance obligation to R2,000 after finding serious calculation errors in the original order granted by the Cape Town Magistrates’ Court.
Where the numbers went wrong
The father had appealed a June 2024 maintenance order that required him to pay R4,250 per month, rising to R7,500 from December 2024, plus half of various additional costs. These included medical expenses, school uniforms and stationery.
The High Court found that the original figures were flawed in several key areas.
Grocery costs were overstated, with no clear explanation of how the child’s portion had been calculated. Transport expenses were included even though the child’s new school was within walking distance. A significant part of the mother’s car instalment was attributed to the child despite minimal use for school transport. Certain items, such as medication and stationer,y appeared twice.
Even inflation was misapplied. An arbitrary seven percent rate had been used, while the average Consumer Price Index sat closer to 5.3 percent at the time.
Perhaps most striking was the handling of the father’s income. It had been calculated at R34,000 per month. The High Court found this figure to be incorrect, partly because the sale of a car, which actually reduced his expenses, had been treated as if it increased his income.
After reviewing the evidence, the court recalculated his average monthly income at R13,480.
A recalculation rooted in fairness
Maintenance, the judge noted, is not an exact science. But it must rest on a sound factual foundation.
Based on both parents’ net incomes, the father’s fair contribution to general expenses was about 25 percent. The revised order now reflects that.
From 1 March 2026, he must pay R2,000 per month, adjusted annually in line with CPI. He must also pay 25 percent of school fees directly to the school, reimburse 50 percent of medical aid premiums and uncovered medical expenses subject to a R2,000 cap without prior consent, and cover half of school uniforms and prescribed stationery.
Importantly, no costs order was made against the mother, who represented herself.
What this means beyond one family
Maintenance disputes are common across South Africa, especially as living costs continue to climb. Many parents feel overwhelmed by rising school fees, transport costs and medical expenses. Others argue that orders are sometimes based on inflated or misunderstood financial details.
This ruling sends a clear message. Courts can and will intervene where there is a clear misdirection or a striking disparity in calculations.
At the same time, the judge made a pointed remark. The reduced obligation was based on the father’s relatively low income at the time of the original order. If his financial position has improved, the court expressed hope that he would agree to a fair recalculation.
In other words, the door swings both ways.
In a country where maintenance battles often turn deeply personal, this case highlights something simple but crucial. Numbers matter. And when those numbers are wrong, the consequences ripple through real lives.
Follow Joburg ETC on Facebook, Twitter, TikT
For more News in Johannesburg, visit joburgetc.com
Source: IOL
Featured Image: NDTV
