Court's decision sees husband lose marital benefits over abusive behaviour.
Image: Pexels
A husband who was labelled abusive forfeited all the benefits from his marriage during a divorce granted by the North Gauteng High Court in Pretoria.
The couple, married in community of property since March 1995, share four children. In January 2019, the wife instituted divorce proceedings citing a host of grievances, including the husband's failure to contribute to the joint estate, which she argued justified a forfeiture of benefits.
She said the husband moved out of their matrimonial home in September 2017 and they have been living separate lives since. He also stopped communicating with the children.
She added that since 2010, he was psychologically, verbally, emotionally and financially abusive. He failed to contribute towards the maintenance and improvements of the matrimonial home, repayments of the mortgage bond, rates and taxes.
He also failed to make meaningful contributions towards the upbringing of the children and in 2018, he took their minor child to a paternity test without her knowledge and consent. Moreover, when he was retrenched sometime in 2001, he used his pension benefits on himself and failed to contribute towards the joint estate.
She further argued that the husband concealed financial assets and interest held in his business and failed to make honest financial disclosure regarding the proceeds. Therefore, he wanted to unlawfully enrich himself at the expense of the joint estate which she had built.
She wanted the husband to forfeit proceeds from the sale of the matrimonial home in the amount of almost R1.4 million—as well as other assets including her Haval vehicle, shares she had with Standard Bank Limited and Woolworths, and her investments held in Old Mutual, Momentum Retirement Annuity, Sanlam’s Umbrella Provident Fund, and the furniture.
Lastly, she wanted each party to pay debts incurred in their own names.
Judge Linda Retief presided over the matter and noted that in 2024, the husband had brought a Rule 43 application where he sought R50,000 from his wife towards his legal fees. He also wanted to move the maintenance obligation to his wife.
However, Judge Retief said that when he brought the application, his financial statements demonstrated that he had monthly income from his business, and his benefits far outweighed that of the wife.
Over and above his misrepresented earnings, he admitted that he failed to pay the agreed contribution of maintenance for his minor children as far back as 2022.
Judge Retief said by doing this, the husband elected to leave the wife to single handedly pay for all the household expenses and also take care of their children.
Furthermore, the judge found that the husband was unwilling to provide the wife with his financial records in preparation for the trial. The wife had to obtain a court order in an effort to shift his unwillingness. Despite the court order, the husband still withheld annual financial statements for the year ending in February 2023.
He also failed to disclose values of his shares; he failed to disclose his role in Let’s Build It Together Foundation and failed to provide the current value of his shares in one of his business interests.
It was also found that he lied about his income as there was evidence that SARS sought over R1 million as his tax liability for income earned in 2023.
"The defendant (husband) was unable to provide proof of how he utilised that income earned during that financial year. No evidence was tendered that he used it for the benefit of the joint estate," said the judge.
The judge said during their years of marriage, the wife was the breadwinner, the constant mother, the carer and the responsible partner in every aspect of the family’s life is a factor.
"Having regard to all the factors, the plaintiff’s (wife) forfeiture relief succeeds...The defendant (husband) has failed to discharge his onus that 50% of the entire joint estate should accrue to him," said the judge.
sinenhlanhla.masilela@iol.co.za
IOL News
Related Topics: