Can Unmarried Partners Claim Interim Maintenance?
CAN UNMARRIED PARTNERS CLAIM INTERIM MAINTENANCE?
A recent decision of the Western Cape High Court has provided much needed clarity on a long-debated uncertainty in South African family law: Can a financially dependent partner in a long-term, unmarried relationship claim interim maintenance? Following the judgement in P.A.L v R.J.T[1], the answer is increasingly leaning towards yes.
For many years, unmarried couples who lived together as life partners sharing homes, finances and family responsibilities enjoyed significantly less protection than married spouses. This created real hardship when such relationships broke down, especially for the financially dependent partner who was often left vulnerable, with limited legal recourse.
The P.A.L v R.J.T judgement makes a meaningful shift, indicating that courts are becoming more willing to look beyond the absence of a formal marriage when fairness and dependency are clear.
In P.A.L v R.J.T, the court considered an application for interim maintenance pending the outcome of the main proceedings, following the end of a 29-year life partnership. Over nearly three decades, the couple lived together, raised two children born of the relationship, and presented themselves to the publicly as though they were married.
Although an interim agreement had been put in place in December 2025, the applicant sought additional temporary support due to a change in circumstances.
The court applied the standard four-part test for interim relief and held as follows:
1. Prima Facie Right:
The applicant showed a credible and arguable right to relief, supported by the duration and nature of the partnership, shared parenthood, financial dependence, and the couple’s longstanding pattern of support.
2. Irreparable Harm:
The sudden termination of financial support created a genuine risk of harm to the applicant.
3. Balance of Convenience:
Given the prior arrangement and the applicant’s reliance on it, maintaining the status quo was more equitable.
4. No adequate Alternative Remedy:
Interim maintenance was necessary to preserve fairness while the main proceedings unfold.
It is important to bear in mind, however, that a significant feature of the P.A.L v R.J.T matter was the absence of any answering papers from the respondent. This procedural context may have influenced the court’s willingness to grant the interim relief sought. As a result, the judgment should not necessarily be read as clear evidence of a broader judicial shift toward recognising life partnerships as a basis for interim maintenance in all circumstances. Instead, it highlights how courts may be prepared to grant such relief where the facts presented by the applicant are uncontested, meaning that future cases, especially those fully argued on both sides, may produce different outcomes.
This decision does not automatically grant unmarried partners the same rights as spouses. However, it reflects a significant judicial willingness to consider the realities of long-term, marriage-like relationships, particularly where dependency and fairness are central.
P.A.L v R.J.T (1749/2023) ↑
