An unemployed woman who wanted her husband to pay her more maintenance was turned down by the Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg, after it was found that the husband went through a significant salary cut.
The husband was employed in Dubai from 2014 and was receiving a monthly salary of R352,669 until the end of April 2023.
The estranged couple moved back to South Africa sometime in November 2022, and the husband’s contract was transferred to a filial company, where he is now earning a monthly salary of R191,666, with his net salary being R115,240.
The pair got married in April 2006 out of community of property, with the exclusion of the accrual system. They had four children in their marriage.
The wife never worked during her marriage.
She has a BA degree in Journalism, which she obtained in 2005, but because they were financially comfortable, she didn’t pursue a career in her field of study.
However, she mentioned that she now plans to pursue a career in teaching.
She moved out of their home sometime in December 2022, leaving the husband with the children, and then went on to institute divorce proceedings in February 2023.
Since then, the husband has been giving her R12,000 every month, paying her R9,000 monthly rent, paying rental vehicle premiums, and providing her medical aid.
The wife felt that the contribution was not enough and approached the high court, where she sought monthly maintenance of R28,875, continued with the rest of the other payments, she wanted to be reimbursed payments she incurred outside of the medical aid, and he should also pay R250,000 towards her legal costs.
In response, the husband said that his wife was immediately employable and was in a position to maintain herself.
He provided the court with a detailed account of his monthly expenses. His monthly expenses total R68,445. After his fixed monthly expenses are paid, he is left with R44,773, from which he must now pay all the essential monthly expenses for himself and the children in his primary care.
The essential monthly expenses total R46,950, and once he has paid that amount, he is left with a shortfall of R2,176. He supplied the court with an affidavit in which he stated that he has a surplus of R3,915.
Meanwhile, the wife stated that she also has a monthly shortfall of R17,875 and that her parents have been assisting her with legal fees and to cover the shortfall.
Upon reviewing the evidence, Judge J Francis said the rule behind interim maintenance was to ensure that neither party is prejudiced during divorce proceedings by a lack of resources to maintain a reasonable standard of living.
Judge Francis said the sum sought by the wife was highly extravagant, and the husband cannot afford to pay it.
The judge further added that it was sad to notice that some couples who had professed their underlying love for one another by getting married, and before the ink on their marriage certificates dried off, brought divorce actions against each other.
“They then seek high-profile attorneys, and common sense disappears, and they are then mulcted with high costs when the disputes between them could easily have been resolved,” said the judge.
To be fair, the judge said the husband will continue maintaining his wife as he did before.
He was also ordered to pay R50,000 towards her legal costs.
IOL