The Western Cape high court on Wednesday ordered a businessman worth millions who refused to provide support to his wife pending their divorce action to pay her maintenance and R1m for her legal costs.
The woman is a dietitian and the husband is a former CEO of a shoe retail company for which, after litigation, he is reported to have received a settlement of R500m.
The woman brought a Rule 43 application wherein she sought spousal and children’s maintenance while divorce proceedings were ongoing, a contribution to legal costs, return and delivery of furniture and household goods, and a payment in respect of electronic household appliances.
The couple met in 2015 and married in April 2018 out of community of property, with the inclusion of the accrual system and are now involved in divorce proceedings. Both were previously married and had two children each from those marriages. No children were born in their marriage.
During a failed mediation by the couple the complex nature of the husband's financial structure was revealed through entities including companies and trusts.
The man said he did not have parental rights and responsibilities in respect of his wife’s children. He also said he did not have a legal duty to maintain them nor did he undertake or promise to maintain them.
The woman’s case was that her children had become accustomed to a high standard of living over the last eight years of the marriage. She said her children were devoted to her husband, formed a strong bond with him and his withdrawal from their lives had caused undue trauma. Her husband never withheld any financial support from the applicant and her children and regularly spoilt them with only the best, she said.
“They went on luxury holidays, including overseas holidays, lived in a beautiful, large house valued at a minimum of R10m, drove luxury cars and the children attended private schools,” said judge Daniel Thulare in his judgment.
Thulare said that based on the facts before him, the parties formed a new family.
“The children of the [woman] were part of that family and lived at the parties’ common home in a golf estate, which was a spacious home with, inter alia, en suite bedrooms including separate training and play rooms with a barbecue room next to the swimming pool.”
Thulare said the man provided financial support and presented to the children, the extended family members and the world that he was responsible as a parent of the children.
“The children moved to private school and were spoilt with luxury, including expensive birthday and Christmas gifts,” Thulare said.
The woman sought an order that the husband continue to pay for monthly expenses for which he paid during the happy days of the marriage.
These were food, groceries, cleaning material, bread and milk at R15,800, toiletries at R1,400, hair care at R1,300 and R4,000 for lunches. There were other expenses including short-term insurance, clothes and shoes, outings for children’s extramural activities and holidays and weekend breakaways.
The woman said the total expenditure for her and the children was R82,974 and less her monthly income of R42,275, the shortfall was R40,699. She said she was not in a financial position to support herself and the children.
The husband said he had only household goods and furniture and a Toyota Land Cruiser worth about R950,000 in his name. He said he had no other assets and his three current accounts were overdrawn. He had no direct or indirect beneficial interest though he was a director of several companies.
The judge said “it is difficult to accept the mere say so” of the husband.
Thulare said on December 16 last year, the man announced his separation from his wife to his colleagues at work.
In that WhatsApp message he, among others, said: “In as far as our children go we have always strived to give them the best in terms of love, time, experience and education. None of this changes in my view and it will certainly continue ... ”
Thulare said this was the same man who suddenly stopped providing for the children at all and now said he was not their biological father. The judge said abrupt change happened in that the man stopped giving the children love, time, experience and education.
“The (man) said one thing in public and did the exact opposite in private.”
Thulare said the man’s denial of his wife’s access to household appliances and necessary furniture was a demonstration of how low the man could stoop to hurt another and deny them a sustainable livelihood.
The court ordered the man to pay R40,000 to the woman every month, keep the woman’s children as dependents on his comprehensive medical aid scheme and pay all her children’s medical expenses not covered by his medical aid.
In addition, the court ordered him to pay the woman’s rent, limited to R35,000 per month, and also water and electricity for the rental property, Wi-Fi, security, a domestic worker’s salary, a gardener’s salary, a car vehicle instalment and golf course membership fees.
He ordered the man to make a R1m contribution towards his wife's legal costs.
TimesLIVE
Would you like to comment on this article?
Sign up (it's quick and free) or sign in now.
Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.