DISTRIBUTED BY VERITAS TRUST Tel: [263] [4] 794478 Fax & Messages [263] [4] 793592 E-mail: veritas@mango.zw 3 Veritas makes every effort to ensure the provision of reliable information, but cannot take legal responsibility for information supplied. Judgment No. SC 37/18 Civil Appeal No. SC 433/16 agrees to increase the said amount of US$2 000.00 per annum by the amount of any annual increase in the DSTV subscription. The current annual subscription being US$720.00. 4.5 Plaintiff will maintain the minor children at his cost for as long as his obligation to pay maintenance for them pertains on a suitable medical and dental aid scheme, both locally and externally (and where the external medical and dental aid policy shall be the Goodhealth policy), and shall in addition, bear any shortfalls in respect of any medical and / or dental attention or treatment or medication administered or applied in respect of the minor children. 4.6 Plaintiff will maintain defendant at his cost on an external medical aid policy subscribed with Goodhealth until her death or remarriage or until she may live as man and wife with another man, or until the youngest child attains the age of 18 years, whichever of these contingencies first occurs.” APPELLANT’S CASE A QUO [5] In her founding affidavit in the High Court, the appellant was clear that the application was for an upward variation and extension of the period of maintenance. She averred that, before the divorce, the family enjoyed a high standard of living. They enjoyed regular holidays in places such as Maldives, Mauritius, America, Scotland, Germany, South Africa and, locally, at Mazvikadei and on a family houseboat at Kariba. She stated that, as owner and Managing Director of a long established firm, C & J Accounting Secretarial Services (Pvt) Ltd, and having interests in several other companies, the respondent was a wealthy man, capable of meeting the upward variation without any difficulty. She further stated that, at some stage after the grant of divorce, the respondent increased the cash payment in respect of the two children to $600 per month but stopped providing fuel. In February 2015, however, the respondent wrote to her advising that he was reverting to the US100 per month per child agreed in the consent paper.