THE Western Cape High Court has ruled that a wealthy husband must provide maintenance for his wife and child, criticising his attempts to shift financial responsibility onto her parents.
Image: File
THE Western Cape High Court has ruled that a wealthy husband must provide maintenance for his wife and child, criticising his attempts to shift financial responsibility onto her parents.
Judge Daniel Thulare delivered judgment while the divorce proceedings were still before the courts, awarding R3,000 per month for the minor child's maintenance and R25,000 per month for the wife's maintenance, IOL reported.
“I find it extremely selfish and lacking in self-respect to hear a rich husband who can afford to maintain his wife, claiming that the wife must first look to her own parents to support her, before she can approach him for her maintenance. It is on the same footing and should be as shameful as a man who can afford to maintain his child, saying a mother must first look to a government's child-care grant before claiming maintenance from him.
“It is a serious patriarchal misdirection and frankly, behaviour that shows lack of good sense and judgment, which is anchored on plain greed and is intended purely to hurt another. It is an action intended to harm in return for a bruised ego, for which the perpetrator has a desire to repay a perceived injury or wrong. It is never about maintenance but revenge. It is a thinking that stands to be rejected,” said Judge Thulare.
The court also ordered that the husband must keep both the child and the wife on his medical aid or any medical aid with the same benefits that they were enjoying and that he continued bearing all the child’s schooling expenses, including school clothing, after-care fees, stationery, and equipment.
The court order also stipulated that the wife would have sole use of the VW Touareg vehicle currently in her possession and that the husband keep the car fully paid for, maintained, and insured.
Additionally, the husband was ordered to contribute R200,000 towards the wife’s costs in the divorce matter.
An excerpt from the judgment noted: “The respondent (husband) alleged that the applicant’s (wife) family was extremely wealthy, and that she was a beneficiary of a substantial Family Trust and was critical of the applicant moving out of her family home, to which she had temporarily moved after leaving the common home.
“While the respondent argued that the applicant was easily able to meet her reasonable and actual monthly expenses from her own resources, he relied, in this conclusion, on the alleged wealth of the Family Trust founded by her father, and not on her own means.
“The respondent is welcome to hold his own opinions in high regard, but they do not, by his own views on his opinions, get elevated to facts. The respondent’s opinion on whether she was paying rent to her father or the Trust remains speculative and irrelevant for the proper determination of the applicant’s means.”
Judge Thulare said the husband would not volunteer the nature, scope, and extent of the wealth of his own volition.
It emerged in court that the husband is a director of several companies, each of which is a separate entity. He owns, among others, property worth closer to R8,750,000, while other properties are registered in the company or trust names.
“Yet he claims that his only vehicle is a KTM motorcycle valued at about R170,000. He claimed his only income was from a rental from the only property he owned in his personal name. His companies generated income, but he was not in a position to quantify what he earned. I am not persuaded, from the posture adopted by (him) in relation to his financial status, that the rules of court, even on further and better discovery, would meet his posture.
“The (wife) cannot be faulted for seeking to appoint a forensic auditor and a sworn valuator to effectively exercise her rights and claim what is truly due to her from the estate. Having considered the list of items for her claim for a contribution to her legal costs, I find R200,000 reasonable. Having considered her expenses, I am not persuaded that she presented exorbitant and inflated amounts as the respondent claimed,” the judge said.
Judge Thulare highlighted that where parents are divorcing, it is common to find them busy fighting and denigrating each other, but added that parents should arrange for situations where children function in an emotional comfort zone.