The applicant and respondent were married on 3 December 2005 and had three minor children born in 2006, 2008, and 2010. Continuous acrimony between the applicant and the respondent's mother led to the applicant leaving the matrimonial home with the children. She was staying in her legal practitioner's cottage at the time of the application. There were counter allegations of assault between the applicant and her mother-in-law, with both having visible injuries from a physical confrontation. The applicant claimed she was subjected to intolerable living conditions, including being confined to a downstairs wing with the children, retreating as early as 5:00 PM. A divorce action was already pending under HC 1081/13. The applicant sought maintenance pendente lite for herself and the children, accommodation costs, and contribution towards legal costs in the divorce proceedings.
1. Applicant's application for interlocutory relief pending HC 1081/13 granted. 2. Respondent to pay US$1,200 per month for rent, accommodation and domestic help expenses. 3. Respondent to pay US$400 per month per child for maintenance of the three minor children. 4. Respondent to pay US$400 per month for the applicant's maintenance. 5. Respondent to continue paying school fees and all school-related expenses, including adequate fuel. 6. The issue of contribution of costs referred to the opposed roll. 7. Respondent granted access to minor children every weekend from Friday afternoon to Monday morning. 8. Respondent to pay the applicant's costs of suit.
The binding legal principles established are: (1) In assessing maintenance pendente lite, courts may adopt a robust approach based on their own experience and information from parties, without requiring the same precision as post-divorce maintenance; (2) Maintenance pendente lite should enable continuation of a comparable standard of living to that formerly enjoyed during the marriage; (3) A court's assessment of maintenance pendente lite will not be interfered with on appeal unless there is misdirection or the assessment is grossly excessive or substantially inadequate; (4) When assessing a spouse's means for maintenance purposes, courts will look beyond declared income to include access to trust assets and foreign income sources; (5) A case cannot be dismissed for lack of urgency alone - non-urgent matters should be removed from the urgent roll or referred to appropriate procedures; (6) Intolerable living conditions caused by family conflicts can justify a spouse's departure from the matrimonial home and entitlement to separate accommodation costs.
The court observed that disputes and bitterness between adult family members must not be extended to children, who should be left to grow like normal children. The court emphasized that the child-parent bond must be maintained and that parental disputes should not interfere with a child's right to interact with either parent. The court also noted that both the applicant and her mother-in-law clearly did not enjoy each other's company or presence in the same house, and that the respondent's mother appeared to have an upper hand over the house (which she had donated to a family trust) compared to the applicant. The court further commented that rental prices advertised are negotiable and can be negotiated downwards.
This case illustrates the Zimbabwean High Court's approach to maintenance pendente lite applications in matrimonial matters. It demonstrates: (1) the court's willingness to adopt a robust approach to assessing temporary maintenance without requiring the same precision as post-divorce maintenance; (2) the principle that a spouse is entitled to maintain a comparable standard of living during divorce proceedings to that previously enjoyed; (3) the court's use of its own experience and information gathering powers under s 5 of the Maintenance Act to assess reasonable amounts; (4) consideration of undisclosed means through trust structures and foreign income; and (5) the importance of maintaining parent-child relationships through access arrangements despite parental disputes. The case also clarifies that lack of urgency does not justify dismissal of an application but rather referral to an appropriate procedure.