A husband asked the court to order that his wife forfeit all patrimonial benefits acquired during their 15-year marriage. He claimed her HIV-positive status indicated she had cheated on him and been promiscuous during their marriage, says a Saturday Star report.

In response, the wife approached the Mpumalanga High Court (Mbombela) to obtain a divorce order and for their joint estate to be split between them.

However, the husband lodged a counter-application, asking that the wife lose half of the assets due to her HIV status.

The couple ceased living together as husband and wife in August 2017. The wife testified that her husband was physically abusive towards her, often in the presence of their child. She stated that he would stay away from home for days, returning in the early hours of the morning.

Unable to endure the situation any longer, she left the matrimonial home with their child.

Conversely, the husband argued that their marriage broke down due to a lack of trust stemming from his wife’s HIV-positive status. He accused her of infidelity and promiscuity, asserting that she could not have contracted HIV from him, as he is free of the virus.

He maintained that the only reasonable conclusion to draw was that she was sleeping around. He argued that it was only fair for her to forfeit her share of their estate, claiming she would unduly benefit if the court did not grant the forfeiture order.

Judge Brian Mashile stated that nowhere in the husband’s papers or evidence was there any indication that the wife would unduly benefit if the forfeiture order was not granted.

‘Put differently, there is no evidence that if the order is not granted, the defendant (husband) will be worse off,’ the judge remarked, according to the Saturday Star report.

The judge noted that both parties had worked as police officers and contributed to their joint estate. There were no allegations that the wife had failed to contribute during their 15-year marriage. 

The court was also not convinced by the husband’s assertion that the wife must have been cheating on him due to her HIV-positive status while he remained negative.

‘The assumption is that she acquired HIV from men with whom she ought to have been in sexual relationships. This assumption arises in the absence of evidence that the HIV was contracted from the plaintiff engaging in sexual relationships with others. Given that HIV transmission is varied, this court cannot justly surmise that it stemmed from any inappropriate relationship,’ Mashile stated.

He dismissed the husband’s counter-application.

Full Saturday Star report