A Johannesburg primary schoolteacher has failed in her efforts to claim R25,000 a month spousal support from her accountant executive husband pending the finalisation of their divorce.
In dismissing her application, the Johannesburg High Court found that Mrs Y had failed to be candid about her expenses, had failed to lay out the relevant facts or properly explain her financial situation and subsequent need for spousal support.
“All the relevant facts and grounds are not placed before me to properly assess whether a need exists and what the exact extent of this need is. Selective facts were disclosed which lead to a distorted and skew picture of the reality and this taints the claim,” said acting judge Sanet van Aswegen.
Mrs Y approached the court to award her interim spousal support and the payment of her medical aid, accommodation and studies as well as a contribution to her legal fees and some movable items from the marital home pending the finalisation of the divorce.
The court heard that the couple married on July 1 2022, out of community of property and without accrual. Mrs Y was 25 years old and employed as a teacher in Bryanston, earning a net salary of R19,000 a month. Mr Y was 47, an account executive at Dell and earned significantly more.
Mrs Y told the court of a marital life of luxury, while Mr Y described an ordinary standard of living in a three-bedroom house with normal furniture and appliances.
However, the marriage did not last, and after one year and four months Mrs Y left the marital home and moved in with her mother.
Mrs Y told the court that during the marriage she contributed R14,000 of her R19,000 salary to household expenses — amounting to 74% of her earnings.
She said that she resigned from her teaching job in March 2023 and began studying accounting at Boston College two months later. She claimed she did this because Mr Y was embarrassed by her being a teacher and had convinced her to pursue online studies to become an accountant. She admitted that she chose to study accounting.
However, Mr Y denied insisting on her resignation, or that he wanted her to pursue a more high-profile career. He told the court that Mrs Y did not get along with the school principal, that she had been demoted from a primary class teacher to assistant primary class teacher and had resigned of her own accord.
“The versions are so far apart that they will have to be tried and tested in the divorce action. It is impossible to deal with the opposing allegations on paper. To extract the truth of the allegations in motion proceedings is impossible,” said Van Aswegen.
The court heard that while Mr Y was keen on a mediation process, Mrs Y had not agreed to this.
Mr Y told the court that Mrs Y had not satisfactorily explained her interim maintenance claim, had given no breakdown of monthly expenses and the reasonableness of them and had failed to lay out a clear picture of how she survived financially for four months after vacating the marital home.
He argued that her claims assumed that she was entitled to support simply because he earned much more than she did and could therefore afford it.
The court found that though she had submitted a Financial Disclosure Form (FDF), Mrs Y had not clarified or explained the reasonableness of her expenses in her affidavit and therefore Mr Y had no right of reply. The expenses she detailed amounted to R55,729.73
Mrs Y’s affidavit was “dedicated to setting the scene and portraying a picture of the respondent being a wealthy man with a lifestyle to suit this”.
“If one has regard to (Mrs Y’s) monthly income as an article clerk of R10,300 and her expenses amount to R55,729.73, she is left with a shortfall of R45,429.73,” the court noted.
“It is abundantly clear that the applicant’s need for interim maintenance cannot be assessed and ascertained if her expenses and the amount claimed as maintenance are merely depicted in her affidavit and FDF, but not discussed and analysed,” said the court.
“The applicant has indeed spelt out that the respondent earns significantly more than her. Nevertheless, that in itself does not entitle the applicant to maintenance pendente lite. She must establish an interim maintenance need.”
The court found that Mrs Y had failed to disclose that she had a part-time job at Trinity House or what she had earned there. She had also failed to declare a monthly pension she received and that was evident in her IRP5.
She stated that she had sold her Mini Cooper and downscaled to a Suzuki Swift after leaving the marriage but failed to disclose that she had sold the Mini for R430,000, purchased the Swift for R230,750 and didn’t explain how she had spent the R199,250 she received for the deal in November 2023.
Mr Y argued that Mrs Y could, if she wanted to, return to teaching and improve her earnings significantly.
The court found that Mrs Y’s lack in pleading essential and material facts, her failure to explain why she would win spousal support in the final divorce settlement and her failure to disclose her financial affairs fully and act in good faith had led to her failing to establish a true need to be maintained.
“An interim maintenance order is not intended as an interim meal ticket for a spouse who, quite clearly, will not establish a right to maintenance at trial,” said the court in dismissing her claim with costs.
