Court reduces father's maintenance payments from R7,500 to R2,000 after calculation errors

A COURT has reduced a father’s monthly maintenance payments from R7,500 to R2,000 after finding that the magistrate made significant calculation errors in determining his contribution.

The Western Cape Court upheld the father’s appeal and replaced the earlier maintenance order granted by the Cape Town Magistrates’ Court, IOL reported.

The father had appealed a June 2024 order requiring him to pay R4,250 per month, increasing to R7,500 from December 2024, as well as 50% of various additional expenses, including medical costs, school uniforms and stationery.

The mother, who represented herself, opposed the application, arguing that the father had acted late in bringing the appeal.

The High Court found that although the appeal was technically filed late, the father’s legal team had mistakenly relied on the rules applicable to civil appeals. The court exercised its discretion to extend the time period in the interests of justice, noting that the mother suffered no prejudice because maintenance payments are not suspended pending an appeal.

At the heart of the appeal were errors in calculating both the child’s expenses and the father’s income.

The High Court found that:

• The magistrate overstated grocery costs without explaining how she arrived at the child’s share.
• Transport costs were included even though the child’s new school was within walking distance.
• A large portion of the mother’s car instalment was attributed to the child, despite minimal use for school transport.
• Some expenses, including medication and stationery, were duplicated.
• An arbitrary inflation rate of 7% was applied, despite the actual Consumer Price Index (CPI) average being about 5.3%.
• The father’s income was incorrectly calculated at R34,000 per month, partly because the magistrate wrongly treated the sale of a car (which reduced expenses) as an increase in income.

The court recalculated the father’s actual average income at R13,480 per month. Based on the parents’ respective net incomes, the father’s correct pro rata share of the child’s general expenses was approximately 25%.

The court stressed that while maintenance is not an exact science, there must be a “sound basis” for the figures used. Where there is a striking disparity or misdirection, an appeal court is entitled to intervene.

The court replaced the order with a revised structure, separating general maintenance from education and medical expenses.

The father must now:

• Pay R2,000 per month from 1 March 2026, increasing annually in line with CPI.
• Pay 25% of the child’s school fees directly to the school.
• Reimburse 50% of medical aid premiums and uncovered medical expenses (subject to a R2,000 cap without prior consent).
• Pay 50% of school uniforms, prescribed stationery and related educational costs.

No costs order was made against the mother, as she represented herself.

In closing, the court noted that the father’s reduced obligation was calculated on the basis of his relatively low income at the time of the original order. If his income has since improved, the judge expressed hope that he would “do the right thing” and agree to a fair recalculation based on his current circumstances.

POST