A 54-year-old woman who is going through a divorce told the Gauteng High Court, Pretoria, that she wants R120,000 for spousal maintenance because she wants to continue with the exorbitant lifestyle her husband introduced.
The couple got married in 1990 and had two children in their marriage.
Now that the pair is going through a divorce that was instituted in August 2021, the wife has approached the High Court to have her husband financially maintain her until their divorce is finalised.
In her application, she said she was unemployed, and she has been fully reliant on her husband to provide for all her needs since the birth of their first child.
She said during the marriage, she had access to a joint account, which enabled her to draw amounts of R30,000 to R40,000 per month to buy groceries and pay for personal expenses.
However, after the divorce action was instituted, the husband replaced the debit card and now gives her R1,000 per month.
He has also stopped paying for her medical expenses, which are not covered by medical aid, electricity, rates, and taxes.
Furthermore, he also stopped her from using the petrol card and the eTag. He is no longer providing her with diesel for the Toyota Land Cruiser she is using.
In her financial disclosure form, she said she receives R48,000 from a trust fund; it was not mentioned how many times she receives the funds. Lastly, she also receives R7,000 every month for rent on the unit that she owns.
In her bank account, she had a balance of over R200,000.
Despite the money she receives, she argues that she is entitled to the amount she is claiming, as she has become accustomed to the high standard of living that she enjoyed before the marriage started to disintegrate.
In response, the husband, who is a businessman, made it clear that he was not in a position to pay any maintenance to his wife because, since October 2018, he has suffered financial hardship as his business was affected by the Covid-19 pandemic.
Moreover, he argued that the wife has sufficient income to maintain herself as she had cashed in on her share of a joint Australian investment from which she received approximately R750,000.
He added that he was still paying for the insurance for the vehicle the wife was using, also pays insurance for the house where they are both staying, and still maintains her in his medical aid.
He said she could afford to pay for the rest of the things she was claiming.
His financial disclosure form indicates that he receives approximately R80,000 in remuneration from his company. From this amount, his financial disclosure form indicates that he receives a monthly cash payment from the company in the amount of R43,000 after all his and his wife’s expenses have been paid.
Looking at both arguments, Judge Nomonde Mngqibisa-Thusi said it was common cause that the wife is unemployed and would find it difficult to find employment due to her age.
She said even though the wife has an expectation of having the same standard of living she previously had, her husband’s financial position has changed, and this calls for a balancing of needs so that a fair distribution of income can be made.
The judge said it was only fair for the woman to get R45,000 in monthly spousal maintenance.
The husband will also continue with her medical bills and continue paying for the Toyota Land Cruiser that the wife is using.
Moreover, he will pay R10,000 towards her legal costs.
IOL