The pair got married out of community of property with the
accrual system in August 2007, and they had two children, a 12-year-old boy and
an eight-year-old girl.
The wife moved out of the matrimonial home in November
2021, and the children have been primarily residing with her.
In March 2022, the husband filed for divorce.
The wife approached the High Court and filed a Rule 43
application, in which she sought interim maintenance for herself and the
children pending the finalisation of their divorce.
Giving background on her financial position, she explained
that she did not finish her high school education as she left school in Grade
10.
She has never been employed during the course of the
marriage relationship.
She only got a job in February 2023 as a temporary
administrator, earning R3,500 monthly.
Due to her position, she argued that she would be unable to
generate income for herself that would fulfil all her maintenance requirements
as well as those of the minor children who primarily reside with her.
She had a total of R3,923 in her FNB and Capitec bank
accounts and told the court that she wanted R41,849 in monthly maintenance for
herself and her children.
She also sought reimbursement for the expenses she had
incurred in obtaining a hospital plan due to her husband’s decision to remove
her from his medical aid.
In addition, she claimed retrospective maintenance of
R192,000 and said that since she left the matrimonial home, she has been loaned
funds by her lover to cover the deficit.
She said she owed her lover R118,000 and her father
R75,000.
She also wants to keep the Toyota Land Cruiser 200, which
her husband now wants back.
In his response, the husband said he is a partner in a
business that produces dog food. He said the business was not financially
viable because of the load shedding.
He said he already contributes a monthly maintenance of
about R23,337, which includes a R10, 000.00 cash payment. His own personal
monthly expenses are about R39,415, and he cannot afford to contribute more
than what he has been contributing.
Judge Portia Nkutha-Nkontwana said the maintenance claim
implicates the constitutional rights of the minor children, and the father
cannot be absolved of his duty to maintain because of the prejudice he claims
he will suffer.
Regarding the retrospective maintenance claim, the judge
said it would be dealt with during the divorce trial.
The court also held that the husband’s arguments that he
needed to dispose of the Land Cruiser in order to improve his financial
position were untenable because he purchased a sailboat and a motorcycle and
failed to provide proof of the purchase price.
As a result, he was ordered to pay R39,548 spousal
maintenance, pay all educational expenses for the children, pay for their
extra-mural and sporting activities, pay for their medical aid, including his
wife, and also pay for all service and replacement of tyres and licencing fees
for the Toyota Land Cruiser.
He was further ordered to contribute R50,000 to his wife’s
legal costs.
IOL
0 comments:
Post a Comment