Mrs Robinson and Mr Shandling (deceased) lived together in a permanent life partnership from 1985 until his death in 2001, lasting 16 years. They never married although there was no legal impediment. Mr Shandling supported Mrs Robinson financially during their relationship. He bequeathed approximately one-third of his estate to her in his will. Mrs Robinson applied for maintenance from the deceased estate under the Maintenance of Surviving Spouses Act 27 of 1990 (the Act). The executor (Mr Volks) rejected her claim on the basis that she did not fall within the definition of "survivor" in section 1 of the Act, which was defined as "the surviving spouse in a marriage dissolved by death". The High Court found the exclusion of survivors of permanent life partnerships from the Act to be unconstitutional and discriminatory on the ground of marital status.
Appeal upheld. The order of the High Court declaring section 1 of the Maintenance of Surviving Spouses Act 27 of 1990 inconsistent with the Constitution was not confirmed. No order as to costs.
This case represents a significant statement by the Constitutional Court on the distinction between marriage and cohabitation for purposes of maintenance claims. The majority held that it is not constitutionally required to extend spousal maintenance obligations to cohabitation relationships where no legal duty of support existed during the parties' lifetimes. The judgment confirms that: (1) Marriage as an institution receives constitutional recognition and may be legitimately privileged in appropriate circumstances; (2) The prohibition on unfair discrimination on the ground of marital status does not automatically require identical treatment of all intimate relationships; (3) The law may distinguish between relationships where legal obligations arise by operation of law (marriage) and those where they do not (cohabitation); (4) Context is crucial in determining whether discrimination on the ground of marital status is unfair; (5) The functional approach to family relationships advocated by law reform bodies and some scholars was not adopted by the majority. The dissenting judgments identified a constitutional imperative for legislative intervention to regulate cohabitation relationships and protect vulnerable surviving partners. The case highlights ongoing tension between freedom of choice, protection of marriage, and substantive equality in South African family law. It leaves to the legislature the question of whether and how to regulate the consequences of cohabitation relationships upon termination by death.