Love and Loss: Woman’s Pursuit of R56K Maintenance From Ex-boyfriend Ends in Courtroom Defeat
A woman’s ambitious quest for R56,000 in spousal maintenance from her former boyfriend has been brutally dashed by the Western Cape High Court.
This devastating ruling marks the end of a poignant legal saga that has laid bare the intricate complexities of long-term relationships and the contentious issue of financial obligations.
Love Lost: Unraveling the Relationship’s Background
The woman, who goes by the initials EW as per court documents, was entangled in a nine-year relationship with VH, the father of their three children. During the course of their union, VH extended substantial financial support to EW, contributing a staggering R100,000 per month to cover various household expenses and upkeep.
This generous provision was consistent until the relationship came to a sudden and unceremonious halt in April 2022, leaving EW in a state of emotional turmoil and financial uncertainty.
Quest for Stability: Woman’s Legal Battle Unveiled
The crux of the matter lies in EW’s impassioned bid to secure ongoing spousal maintenance, despite the end of their romantic liaison.
According to IOL, The couple had once shared a home funded through a trust controlled by VH. However, the dissolution of their partnership brought forth threats of lease cancellation, accompanied by the haunting specter of VH potentially wresting their children from EW’s custody.
Desperation in Court: Woman’s Plea for Justice
Desperate and devoid of assets or income, EW turned to the courts, seeking legal remedy to secure her economic footing. EW’s case pivoted on her argument that their seven-year cohabitation, coupled with their shared responsibilities, essentially resembled a marriage. She asserted that their relationship was perceived as such by the public and was thereby deserving of continued financial support.
Dissent and Discrimination: A Divided Verdict
In a jarring twist of fate, Judges Judith Innes Cloete and Hayley Maud Slingers emerged as the voices of dismissal. Their ruling rejected EW’s heartfelt application, with no accompanying costs imposed. However, the judicial sentiment was far from unanimous, as Judge Derek Wille stood in dissent.
Judge Wille’s dissenting view raised an incisive critique against what he deemed unfair discrimination against marginalized life partners, who often find themselves bereft of legal protection. He argued that the prevailing power dynamics sustain a traditional structure where male partners dictate the relationship’s nature and, consequently, control the allocation of legal benefits.
