Surgeon under the knife in maintenance case
An Umhlanga surgeon has been accused of deliberately misleading his financial situation in pre-divorce proceedings in which his wife sought maintenance for her and the couple’s three children of more than R100 000 a month.
However, the wife – who claims she left him because he started a relationship with her best friend – said in her court papers that apart from owning his own laparoscopic clinic, he was a trustee of two trusts, a director of three companies and had R950 000 invested in cryptocurrency.
TimesLIVE reports that she also believed the family home was worth R10m and he had cars valued at another R1m.
KZN High Court (Durban) Acting Judge Garth Davis said the father claimed to earn R7 500 a month and, in his affidavit, did not deal with the other allegations of his wealth.
Davis said counsel for the wife had subjected the surgeon’s financial disclosures to a ‘searing and unforgiving analysis’.
‘This reveals his (the husband’s) submissions, in his affidavit, are at best misguided. At worst they are a disingenuous attempt to obfuscate his financial position,’ Davis said.
‘Without overly belabouring the record, the funds he has at his disposal – and in particular his disposable income as evinced by his spending at luxury boutiques and holidays – makes a mockery of his allegation that his income is limited to his salary.’
Davis said while the husband had been less than forthcoming with his financial affairs, this did not mean she was entitled to the full amount of her claim.
Rule 43 proceedings were meant to be inexpensive and expeditious, to give speedy relief to a spouse who may have been cut off from financial support.
‘The issues cannot be determined with the same degree of precision as in a trial. It does not necessarily entertain the granting of a wish list.’
TimesLIVE notes that he said the woman’s claims appeared to be excessive.
In his order, he granted the woman monthly maintenance of R55 000 and ordered the man to pay medical and educational costs.
He ordered that he pay R50 000 for furniture and R40 000 as a contribution to legal costs.
Article disclaimer: While we have made every effort to ensure the accuracy of this article, it is not intended to provide final legal advice as facts and situations will differ from case to case, and therefore specific legal advice should be sought with a lawyer.
