Court overturns order for man to pay R2,000 maintenance to former wife

The Limpopo High Court has cancelled a divorce order that forced a man to pay his former wife R2,000 monthly maintenance for life.

The court said the woman failed to prove that she needed financial support after the divorce.

The high court said the lower court, where the divorce was heard, failed to assess the woman’s evidence in chief, claiming to be unemployed and dependent on her husband for financial support.

At the time, she said she also ran a tuckshop and cake-baking business, which made her about R650 per month.

The couple was married in community of property in 2000 and later divorced after their marriage broke down. The Regional Court in Lebowakgomo had earlier ordered the husband to pay his former wife R2,000 every month until she died or remarried.

But the husband appealed against the ruling, arguing that the court made a mistake because his former wife did not show proper proof of her financial needs.

In the appeal judgment delivered on May 22, judges Muller and Pillay agreed with the husband.

The judges said the woman asked for R10,000 maintenance during the divorce case, but failed to explain how she calculated the amount or provide clear proof of her monthly expenses.

“The learned regional magistrate erred and misdirected herself in finding that the respondent was entitled to lifelong maintenance, whereas the respondent admitted that she was still of employable age and was self-employed by operating a tuckshop at a nearby school, and had a baking business.

“The regional magistrate failed to conduct an inquiry into the income the respondent received at the tuck shop per month and her baking business. There was only an empty statement made that the appellant was an attorney while the respondent was unemployed,” read the judgment.

According to the judgment, South African law does not automatically give divorced spouses the right to maintenance. A person asking for support must show the court that they are unable to support themselves financially.

The husband argued that his former wife earned money from selling cakes and from the tuckshop business. He told the court that the lower court ignored these facts when it granted lifelong maintenance.

The appeal court also found that there was no proper investigation into the husband’s financial situation and whether he could afford to pay the maintenance amount.

The judges criticised the lower court for failing to explain how it arrived at the R2,000 figure. They described this as a serious mistake that affected the fairness of the judgment.

The high court said divorce cases should follow the “clean break” principle wherever possible. This means former spouses should become financially independent after divorce unless there are strong reasons for ongoing support.

Due to a lack of evidence, the high court removed the maintenance order completely and replaced it with a new order stating that no spousal maintenance would be paid to the woman.

However, the husband will continue supporting the children of the marriage. The court ordered him to pay R3,000 for the minor child and R6,000 for the adult dependent child.

He must also pay school fees, hostel fees, transport, uniforms, stationery, tertiary education costs and medical expenses for the children.

The court also overturned parts of the original divorce order dealing with the division of the joint estate. The judges found that the lower court did not properly deal with all the assets and debts of the marriage before making its ruling.

Though the husband won the appeal, the court decided that each party should pay their own legal costs because the matter involved a family dispute.

Sowetan