Contact
Arrear maintenance | Maintenance | Maintenance order

Can you challenge maintenance when you’re in arrears?

The duty to maintain a child is of utmost importance. But what happens when your financial circumstances change, causing you to fall behind on maintenance payments? Can you challenge the maintenance order in such a situation?

The Preamble to the Maintenance Act, 99 of 1998 (“Maintenance Act”) recognises the rights of a child but also emphasises the importance of a sensitive and fair approach to the determination and recovery of maintenance. 

Maintenance orders awarded are largely based on the duty of parents to support their children. There are mainly three types of maintenance orders:

1. An order granted by the court after the parties put their financial positions as well as the needs of the child(ren) before the court. 
2. An order by consent where the Respondent consents that the application for maintenance is made an order of the court.
3. An order by default where a Respondent fails to object to an application for maintenance.

In recent times, there has been a growing influx of Respondents approaching the maintenance courts where their financial situation simply does not allow them to continue to pay maintenance in accordance with the applicable maintenance order. Such Respondents then approach a court in terms of section 19 of the Maintenance Act to apply for the variation or setting aside of a maintenance order. 

Unfortunately, in many cases, Respondents wait to apply for a variation or setting aside their maintenance order when they have already fallen in arrears with their maintenance. 

From the 2018 Constitutional Court judgment of S S v V V S 2018 (6) BCLR 671 (CC), a Respondent cannot bring such an application when in arrears. In terms of section 6(2) of the Maintenance Act, a Maintenance Officer must investigate every complaint, and should that reveal that a Respondent is in fact in arrears, the Maintenance Officer must reject the request for variation or discharge and provide the Respondent with reasons therefore based on the decision in S S v V V S. The only notable exception to this rule is where a Respondent is able provide proof that he/she was not aware of the application and/or the order and is therefore not willfully in arrears. In such cases, the order may be substituted or discharged.

Disclaimer: This article is the personal opinion/view of the author(s) and is not necessarily that of the firm. The content is provided for information only and should not be seen as an exact or complete exposition of the law. Accordingly, no reliance should be placed on the content for any reason whatsoever and no action should be taken on the basis thereof unless its application and accuracy has been confirmed by a legal advisor. The firm and author(s) cannot be held liable for any prejudice or damage resulting from action taken on the basis of this content without further written confirmation by the author(s). 

December 3, 2024
Culture vs style: When workplace dress codes cross the line

Culture vs style: When workplace dress codes cross the line

by | Jan 16, 2026 | , , , ,

Dress codes are a familiar part of many workplaces, yet employers often fail to calibrate how far they are allowed to go in regulating employee personal appearance. While employers may enforce standards of neatness, safety and professionalism, these rules cannot override constitutional rights, nor can they operate in a discriminatory manner. A recent reminder of this emerged from the Supreme Court of Appeal, where the court had to consider the fairness of dismissing correctional officers for refusing to cut their dreadlocks, contrary to the employer’s dress code.

Competition Commission guidelines on confidential information

Competition Commission guidelines on confidential information

by | Jan 16, 2026 | , ,

The Competition Commission of South Africa (“Competition Commission”) identified a need to guide merger parties and stakeholders on claiming confidentiality over information. In September 2025, the Competition Commission issued Guidelines on the Commission’s handling of confidential information (“Guidelines”), which, however, are not binding on the Competition Commission, the Competition Tribunal or the Competition Appeal Court, but must be taken into account by these authorities when interpreting and applying the Competition Act 89 of 1998 (“Competition Act”).

Termination of joint ownership, rights in question: PIE Act explained

Termination of joint ownership, rights in question: PIE Act explained

by | Jan 16, 2026 | , , ,

In a recent Western Cape court case where the court ordered the termination of joint ownership of properties, an interesting question arose as to whether the termination of joint ownership did not amount to an eviction contrary to the Prevention of Illegal Eviction from and Unlawful Occupation of Land Act, 19 of 1998 (PIE Act)? We look at the requirements for the termination of joint ownership by our courts and whether this can infringe on the PIE Act.

Sign up to our newsletter

Pin It on Pinterest