The South Gauteng High Court in Johannesburg has dismissed an urgent interim application by a husband seeking maintenance for his infant child and shared control of rental income from his estranged wife’s property.
The court ruled that the relief sought falls outside the scope of Rule 43 proceedings and that the wife has no legal duty to support a child born outside the marriage.
The Background
The parties were married in community of property in April 2022. At the time, the husband was 30 and the wife 46. No children were born of the marriage.
However, the husband fathered a child with another woman in June 2025 while still married.
The wife instituted divorce proceedings in September 2025, citing the husband’s extramarital affair and the birth of the child.
Despite the pending divorce, the husband continues to live in the marital home and relies on food purchased by the wife.
The Financial Situation
Both parties are currently unemployed. The wife’s only income comes from rental cottages on property in Germiston that she owned before the marriage.
-
Potential rental income: Approximately R24,500 monthly
-
Current rental income: About R7,200 per month
The Relief Sought
The husband sought:
He argued that he previously supported the child and the child’s mother using rental proceeds, and that the wife’s decision to instruct tenants to pay rent directly into her personal account deprived him of funds needed to support the child.
The Court’s Ruling
Acting Judge DJ Smith held that the wife has no legal duty to maintain a child born to her husband outside the marriage unless she explicitly undertakes such a responsibility. The evidence showed she had never assumed a duty of support toward the child.
The court also found that the primary purpose of the husband’s application was to secure financial support for his child, rather than maintenance for himselfwhich falls outside Rule 43 proceedings.
The court also noted that the husband’s own needs were already being met, as he continued to live in the matrimonial home and relied on food purchased by the wife. His claim for transport expenses lacked sufficient detail and supporting evidence.
The Bottom Line
The husband fathered a child outside his marriage. He wants his wife to help pay for it. The court said: no.
She has no legal duty to support his extramarital child. And his application was dismissed.
