Cheating husband forfeits portion of wife's pension fund in divorce settlement

A Limpopo husband who was described as abusive and said to have neglected his duties while his wife single handedly maintained their child, forfeited a portion from his wife’s pension fund during their divorce.

The former couple, married in community of property in January 2011, found themselves in a bitter legal battle post-separation, which highlighted serious issues of misconduct and financial irresponsibility.

The decision to end the marriage was largely influenced by the husband's behaviour, which reportedly included emotional and physical abuse, as well as a lack of financial support towards their child.

Evidence presented during the divorce proceedings indicated that since 2016, the husband had stopped all contributions to household expenses, leaving his wife to shoulder the entire financial burden. Faced with the weight of these responsibilities, she took out loans to maintain the family home and provide for their child alone. The situation deteriorated to the extent that the wife sought protection from her husband through a court order in 2018.

The husband, meanwhile, reportedly engaged in extramarital affairs and misappropriated his income for his personal use and for the benefit of others. This continued until he ultimately left the marital home to begin a new life.

She filed for divorce and the Regional Court in Polokwane; Limpopo granted a decree of divorce in February 2023 and an equal division of their joint estate, which included the family home located in Mankweng. The wife's Government Employment Fund (GEF) was valued at R98,000, and the court ordered that R24,500, representing 25%, be paid to the husband.

Dissatisfied with this decision, the husband sought an appeal for a larger share of his wife's pension fund; however, his appeal lapsed due to non-compliance. In a dramatic turn of events, the wife took the opportunity to file a cross-appeal in the Limpopo High Court advocating for a forfeiture of the R24,500 awarded to the husband. 

During the appeal, Judge Marisa Naudé-Odendaal noted that the wife managed to prove that she was entitled to a forfeiture order because the husband's conduct amounts to substantial misconduct, and if the order for forfeiture was not made, he would have unduly benefited in relation to the wife.

However, the judge stipulated that a complete forfeiture was not substantiated by the available evidence; a partial forfeiture was deemed more appropriate under the circumstances. 

Additionally, the husband's desire to establish a trust for their child concerning the family home was addressed. Judge Naudé-Odendaal said that such a trust could only be established if the parties reached an agreement.

"The parties should reach that agreement and erect a trust for their child. Once the parties reached such a settlement agreement, the settlement agreement could be made an order of court," said the judge.

Consequently, the wife's appeal for a full for a forfeiture order was dismissed and each party was ordered to pay their own costs.

sinenhlanhla.masilela@iol.co.za

IOL

Get your news on the go. Download the latest IOL App for Android and IOS now.