A ‘cheating and abusive’ husband who sought R15 000 monthly maintenance from his wife failed to convince the Gauteng High Court (Pretoria) that he needed the funds.

A Pretoria News report says the former couple was married in community of property in 1999 and two children were born from the marriage.

The wife brought a divorce application in the High Court and also sought for the husband to forfeit her pension fund, as well as properties and cars which were part of the joint estate. However, an attorney informed the court that most of the issues had been settled and the only thing that remained to be contested was the forfeiture of the pension benefits.

The wife testified that the husband would be unduly benefiting if the forfeiture order was not granted.

Her argument was that, in 2006, the husband assaulted her to a point where she sustained serious injuries to her right hand which was now partially paralysed.

Furthermore, she said he had an extra-marital relationship with another woman during their marriage. In his defence, the husband testified that when he received his pension payout, he used most of the money to build a house for his children on the stand owned by the wife’s parents. 

He said he was now involved with an NGO and earned a monthly income of R4 000. He argued that he could not live on R4 000, and he needed his wife to pay him R15 000 to maintain the standard of living to which he was accustomed.

Judge Elizabeth Kubushi said the grounds raised by the wife in support of her claim for forfeiture only served as grounds for the irretrievable breakdown of the marriage, but they were not substantial misconduct for the purpose of forfeiture.

‘The allegations of the extra-marital relationship by the defendant alleged in the particulars of claim are not proven and she was unable to show the allegations of assault and abuse that was proven amounts to substantial misconduct,’ said Kubushi, according to the Pretoria News report.

Addressing the husband’s spousal maintenance claim, the judge said it was common course that the wife earned more money than the husband.

However, there was no evidence on record indicating how much she earned on a monthly basis or whether she could afford to pay the sought amount.

‘The defendant (husband) seeks to maintain the lifestyle enjoyed by both parties during the marriage, yet he proffered no evidence to prove the type of lifestyle they enjoyed during their marriage. Nor did the defendant tender evidence to prove his financial needs and obligations on a monthly basis in order to justify his claim for R15 000.’

Kubushi said since the parties were married in community of property, the joint estate should be divided equally between them.

‘The pension money should be divided equally between the parties. The defendant’s claim for spousal maintenance ought to be dismissed as he has failed to establish the same in his evidence,’ said the judge.

Full Pretoria News report in The Star

Judgment