Signed judgment

Findings 1. Having considered the arguments presented by both parties, the Court finds that Daniel initially contributed R6,000 towards the child’s maintenance while Lerato was experiencing financial difficulties. That contribution was introduced as temporary support during a financially challenging period and is not, for that reason alone, to be regarded as a permanent maintenance arrangement. 2. Daniel has proposed reducing his monthly contribution to R3,500. That reduction cannot be justified solely by his personal preference. The child’s needs and standard of living remain the primary considerations. 3. Daniel’s additional income of R28,000 is said by him to constitute a loan that he is required to repay. The financial records presented do not clearly identify the amount as a loan. There is insufficient documentary evidence establishing formal loan terms, repayment obligations or the nature of the transaction. 4. The Court therefore cannot simply disregard the R28,000 when assessing Daniel’s apparent financial position. If Daniel wishes the Court to accept his explanation, the burden rests on him to provide credible supporting documentation. Ruling 5. Daniel’s proposed contribution of R3,500 is not accepted at this stage. Insufficient evidence has been presented to establish that this amount adequately meets the child’s reasonable needs. 6. Lerato’s demand for R6,000 is acknowledged, although that amount was originally a temporary contribution rather than an established permanent maintenance order. 7. Daniel is required to provide verifiable documentation concerning the alleged R28,000 loan, including the lender’s details, the repayment agreement and proof of actual repayments. 8. Until Daniel provides sufficient evidence of his alleged financial obligations, the Court will consider the R28,000 as part of the financial information relevant to determining his ability to contribute. 9. Both parties are reminded that child maintenance is a responsibility owed to the child, not a financial favour extended to the other parent. Order 10. Daniel’s request to reduce the contribution to R3,500 is dismissed pending proper financial disclosure. 11. The existing contribution of R6,000 shall remain the interim monthly contribution, subject to a full assessment of both parties’ financial circumstances and the child’s reasonable needs. 12. The child’s best interests must take precedence over disagreements between the parents.