A Johannesburg primary schoolteacher has failed in her efforts to claim R25 000 a month spousal support from her accountant executive husband pending the finalisation of their divorce.

A TimesLIVE report says in dismissing her application, the Gauteng High Court (Johannesburg) found the woman – Mrs Y – had failed to be candid about her expenses, had failed to lay out the relevant facts or properly explain her financial situation and subsequent need for spousal support.

‘All the relevant facts and grounds are not placed before me to properly assess whether a need exists and what the exact extent of this need is. Selective facts were disclosed which lead to a distorted and skewed picture of the reality and this taints the claim,’ said Acting Judge Sanet van Aswegen.

Mrs Y had approached the court to award her interim spousal support and the payment of her medical aid, accommodation and studies as well as a contribution to her legal fees and some movable items from the marital home pending the finalisation of the divorce.

The court found that though she had submitted a Financial Disclosure Form (FDF), Mrs Y had not clarified or explained the reasonableness of her expenses in her affidavit and therefore Mr Y had no right of reply.

‘It is abundantly clear that the applicant’s need for interim maintenance cannot be assessed and ascertained if her expenses and the amount claimed as maintenance are merely depicted in her affidavit and FDF, but not discussed and analysed,’ said the court.

‘The applicant has indeed spelt out that the respondent earns significantly more than her. Nevertheless, that in itself does not entitle the applicant to maintenance pendente lite. She must establish an interim maintenance need.’

According to the TimesLIVE report, the court found that Mrs Y’s lack in pleading essential and material facts, her failure to explain why she would win spousal support in the final divorce settlement and her failure to disclose her financial affairs fully and act in good faith had led to her failing to establish a true need to be maintained.

‘An interim maintenance order is not intended as an interim meal ticket for a spouse who, quite clearly, will not establish a right to maintenance at trial,’ said the court in dismissing her claim with costs.

Full TimesLIVE report

Judgment