Introduction: After a divorce, the clean break principle aims to ensure that both parties become financially independent as soon as possible.

While child maintenance orders prioritize the well-being of children, spousal maintenance requires a delicate balancing act.

In this article, we will examine a real-life example to understand how courts exercise their discretion in determining spousal maintenance.

Case study: a Bitter divorce and a claim for "permanent" maintenance in a contentious divorce case, a couple married under the "out of community of property with accrual" regime faced numerous disputes and allegations. The court's focus was on the wife's claim for "permanent maintenance" and the husband's counter-offer of "rehabilitative maintenance" for a limited period.

It is crucial to note that the maintenance issue was considered alongside other financial benefits awarded to the wife, including a 50% share of the accrued estate.

The wife's claim: During the divorce proceedings, the wife argued that her chances of becoming self-supporting were slim due to factors such as her age, health, outdated qualification, and limited exposure in the job market. She had been granted an interim order of maintenance "pendente lite" (pending the litigation) amounting to R6,500 per month.

The husband's counter-argument: The husband contended that the wife possessed various skills and talents and had the potential to secure employment to support herself. He emphasized that, coupled with her share of the accrued estate, she had ample income to achieve self-sufficiency.

Furthermore, he highlighted his imminent retirement in two years, which would result in a decline in his income as he relied on his pension for support.

Court's analysis and decision: The court acknowledged the clean break principle's longstanding resonance in divorce cases.

While the aim is to achieve financial independence as soon as possible, the court also recognizes the need to consider the specific circumstances of each case.

The court found that the wife possessed numerous administrative skills and talents, making future employment feasible.

It concluded that a clean break would be in line with the parties' desire to sever all ties and end the marriage.

The court's ruling determined that the wife should focus on developing and empowering herself to secure and sustain her future.

Thus, it opted for rehabilitative maintenance, rather than permanent maintenance. It emphasized that an arbitrary period of rehabilitative maintenance would not address the ultimate goal of self-sufficiency.

Ultimately, the court ordered the husband to pay rehabilitative maintenance of R8,000 per month for a period of 24 months after the divorce.

Additionally, he was required to maintain his ex-wife on his medical aid and cover all her medical expenses during this period.

Conclusion: Spousal maintenance after divorce necessitates a careful evaluation of the parties' circumstances. While the clean break principle aims to promote financial independence, courts consider factors such as skills, earning potential, and other financial benefits received by the financially weaker spouse. The case discussed demonstrates the court's commitment to equipping individuals with the means to live independently while ensuring a fair and reasonable transition toward self-sufficiency.

Disclaimer: please note that this article is intended to provide general information and should not be relied upon as legal or professional advice. For specific and detailed advice, always consult a legal professional.