Men are Screwed (rule 43)

Zarnicate

Senior Member
Joined
May 15, 2016
Messages
648
"During a divorce, one of the spouses is often ordered by a court to pay maintenance while the divorce proceedings are being finalised. This is called an interim order.

Sometimes spouses appeal these interim orders, causing delays and leaving their former partner and children without money to support themselves.

The Constitutional Court has put an end to this practice. It has upheld the prohibition against appealing an order for interim maintenance pending divorce proceedings."


I went through a divorce. The courts are always in the woman's favor.
Her lawyer immediately applied for rule 43. No letter asking for an amount or anything just rule 43 needs to apply.
During the divorce my lawyer also advised not to even bother fighting the custody battle as all that is going to happen is, it is going to cost an arm and a leg and the court always rules in favor of the woman. Only grant the man custody if the woman is a danger to the child, drug abuser or unable to provide for the child. (friend did the custody battle and lost..arm and a leg)

Years later I was jobless and applied to have the maintenance reduced as I had no income and was living off family etc.
Go to court on the day. Ex doesn't pitch. Under normal circumstances they should then grant in my favor but no what does the court do they phone the ex and wait until she arrives. If it was the reverse would that happen...no.

Now some crazy b*tch thinks she is entitled to R60k per month and you can't appeal the ruling.
She is living in luxury when the man is eating scraps and can hardly get by in a month. (not referring to this particular article but friend's situation)

So bottom line gents just don't get married. Your screwed.

Happily Married = She is happy and you are married.
 

My_King

Honorary Master
Joined
Jun 5, 2018
Messages
10,671
"During a divorce, one of the spouses is often ordered by a court to pay maintenance while the divorce proceedings are being finalised. This is called an interim order.

Sometimes spouses appeal these interim orders, causing delays and leaving their former partner and children without money to support themselves.

The Constitutional Court has put an end to this practice. It has upheld the prohibition against appealing an order for interim maintenance pending divorce proceedings."


I went through a divorce. The courts are always in the woman's favor.
Her lawyer immediately applied for rule 43. No letter asking for an amount or anything just rule 43 needs to apply.
During the divorce my lawyer also advised not to even bother fighting the custody battle as all that is going to happen is, it is going to cost an arm and a leg and the court always rules in favor of the woman. Only grant the man custody if the woman is a danger to the child, drug abuser or unable to provide for the child. (friend did the custody battle and lost..arm and a leg)

Years later I was jobless and applied to have the maintenance reduced as I had no income and was living off family etc.
Go to court on the day. Ex doesn't pitch. Under normal circumstances they should then grant in my favor but no what does the court do they phone the ex and wait until she arrives. If it was the reverse would that happen...no.

Now some crazy b*tch thinks she is entitled to R60k per month and you can't appeal the ruling.
She is living in luxury when the man is eating scraps and can hardly get by in a month. (not referring to this particular article but friend's situation)

So bottom line gents just don't get married. Your screwed.

Happily Married = She is happy and you are married.

Jip, I have learned from others mistakes.
 

Emjay

Honorary Master
Joined
Jun 18, 2005
Messages
15,016
@Zarnicate, you didn't tell us what happened when you applied to have your maintenance payment lowered. Did that happen, or not?
 

Zarnicate

Senior Member
Joined
May 15, 2016
Messages
648
@Zarnicate, you didn't tell us what happened when you applied to have your maintenance payment lowered. Did that happen, or not?

Yes it was reduced but not to what it should have been. If the other party is not present at proceedings it then defaults to the party attending.

Thus in this case she got more. I was willing to pay maintenance even though I had no income thus technically I should have been paying zilch. Thus above the amount I was willing to pay she got more.
 

TelkomUseless

Honorary Master
Joined
Mar 13, 2006
Messages
14,785
I have been thru 3 of these Rule 43 (in the same divorce case, 1 failed, 2 nailed). They do hurt... (and I already paid maintenance, but was not enough according to her)

The bad part is women can just give a budget, they don't have to proof anything. If it comes to children, court will nail the father. The x wife can't afford the kids, but father will pay what she shorts...

Ps. I'm not saying women are bad etc. But these rule 43 is unfair towards men. It depends on the woman you divorce I suppose. You get fathers who don't pay etc as well..
 

Emjay

Honorary Master
Joined
Jun 18, 2005
Messages
15,016
Yes it was reduced but not to what it should have been. If the other party is not present at proceedings it then defaults to the party attending.

Thus in this case she got more. I was willing to pay maintenance even though I had no income thus technically I should have been paying zilch. Thus above the amount I was willing to pay she got more.

To be clear. You offered to pay X, but the courts said you have to pay X+n even though you had no job?

Or, did you offer to pay X, and the court granted an order for you to pay X?
 

Gingerbeardman

Executive Member
Joined
Nov 6, 2018
Messages
5,472
Nothing worse than feminist single mothers. The damage they do to their children's perception of healthy relationships is a cancer.
Best bet if you're looking for something long-term is to find a woman who want an alternative lifestyle and has a psychological need for submissive behaviour. They tend not to get fooled by any of that "equality" nonsense.

Related:
 

Zarnicate

Senior Member
Joined
May 15, 2016
Messages
648
To be clear. You offered to pay X, but the courts said you have to pay X+n even though you had no job?

Or, did you offer to pay X, and the court granted an order for you to pay X?

I offered to pay X and the court granted X+n.

I was willing to pay as I felt my kid deserved it. I would pay as long as I could until all my funds were exhausted and all avenues were exhausted. I however knew that the joblessness was just temporary and something would crop up.

So I was willing to pay for about 6 months and if I did not find a new job by then I would have applied to make it Zilch.
 
Top