Contact
Antenuptial contract | Antenuptials | Claim | Maintenance

Navigating spousal maintenance in your Antenuptial contract

When getting married a common option for couples is to select getting married out of community of property with the accrual system. This requires an antenuptial contract to be drawn up by a notary. But what happens if one of the spouses wishes to also in the antenuptial contract exclude the right to claim maintenance should they get divorced. Is that at all enforceable?

Section 7(2) of the Divorce Act 70 of 1979 is the point of departure in any question of spousal maintenance in divorce actions. This section sets forth the factors upon which a court will rely when considering a claim for spousal maintenance, the amount payable and the duration for which an order will apply in favour of a party. This requires, although not a closed list, an evaluation of the current and prospective needs of each individual partner, the status quo and standard of living of the parties and their contribution towards the breakdown of the marriage relationship.

Spousal maintenance is therefore not an automatic right for any party in divorce proceedings, with the spouse who can make out a proper case for spousal maintenance in line with the factors in section 7(2) able to be awarded the right to claim for maintenance. 

Can this right to claim maintenance at divorce be waived by an agreement between the spouses?
Antenuptial contracts are recognised in South African matrimonial property law as a means to designate the applicable matrimonial property consequences that will attach to a marriage. Parties may in essence agree to include any provision in an antenuptial contract except that which may be regarded as unreasonable, against public policy and unlawful. An agreement in the form of an antenuptial contract is an important facet of the freedom to contract, a legal principle which has been strongly recognised and upheld in our law. 

However, a provision to waive spousal maintenance will be regarded as against public policy for the simple reason that it deprives a court of the statutory powers to make such a finding based on the facts of each matter. The presence of an antenuptial contract that attempts to waive the powers of the court will not override the right of a party to claim for spousal maintenance based on circumstances he or she could not have foreseen at date of divorce and the provisions that aim to override such powers will be unenforceable.

November 6, 2023
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