Judge slashes wife’s R60k maintenance bid

A Western Cape High Court judge has criticised a woman’s R60,000-a-month maintenance claim, finding she exaggerated her expenses in an attempt to secure a bigger payout from her estranged husband.

Although the court stopped short of dismissing her application, Judge Pinda Njokweni said the woman’s conduct almost cost her the relief she sought, describing parts of her evidence as inflated, unreliable and lacking the honesty expected in maintenance applications.

“The applicant inflated her expenses to extract as much maintenance from the respondent as possible,” the judge found.

The judgment arose from a Rule 43 application, which allows spouses to seek temporary maintenance while divorce proceedings are under way.

The applicant had initially asked the court to order her estranged husband to pay her R59,100 a month, continue paying the bond on the family home, cover household expenses, medical aid and school costs, and contribute R300,000 towards her legal fees.

Instead, the court ordered the husband to pay R25,000 a month for up to 12 months for the woman and the two teenage children. He must also continue paying the bond, municipal charges, household insurance, medical aid, children’s education costs and vehicle-related expenses. He was also ordered to contribute R40,000 towards her legal costs.

In explaining why he refused much of the relief sought, Judge Njokweni repeatedly criticised the applicant’s financial disclosure.

The judge said Rule 43 applications are built on “the utmost good faith” and require applicants to make full and frank disclosure of their financial affairs.

“Without full disclosure, the court cannot quantify the need for maintenance,” he said.

The court found that the applicant reduced her claimed monthly maintenance from R59,100 to about R44,000 after filing a supplementary affidavit and admitting she had made errors, including double-counting several expenses.

The judge was not persuaded.

“The applicant’s supplementary affidavit is silent on why or how such errors occurred,” he said.

He further found that some expenses remained excessive, including grocery costs and increased spending on the children’s extracurricular activities.

“I agree with the respondent’s counsel that the applicant inflated her expenses to extract as much maintenance from the respondent as possible.”

The court also found contradictions in the applicant’s evidence regarding debts she claimed to have accumulated.

Initially, she told the court she had borrowed about R840,000 after separating from her husband to support herself and the children.

She later said the debts dated back to 2016, when the couple experienced financial difficulties after a builder allegedly stole their savings.

Judge Njokweni said the conflicting versions undermined her credibility.

“The applicant intended to paint a picture to suit her narrative, which was far from the truth,” he ruled.

The judge was equally critical of the woman’s disclosure of her business income.

Although she later filed documents showing the financial performance of her company, the court found she still failed to clearly disclose what she actually earned from book sales, speaking engagements and consulting work.

“If the applicants do not provide clear financial data, the court cannot calculate their maintenance needs. If the court cannot determine the need, it cannot (and should not) grant the order,” Judge Njokweni said.

Despite his criticism, the judge said the case also involved minor children, whose interests were most important.

He said he had initially been inclined to dismiss the application entirely because of the applicant’s conduct.

“However, because it also implicates maintenance for the parties’ minor children, I decided against my initial inclination.”

Instead, the court granted a scaled-down maintenance order that balanced the children’s interests with the respondent’s financial ability.

The judge also rejected the suggestion that the husband was trying to evade his responsibilities.

“I am persuaded that the respondent is not a husband and father who is shying away from his duty to maintain his spouse and children,” he said.

“To the contrary, the evidence shows a husband and father who has gone and still goes all out to provide, within his means, for the reasonable maintenance needs of his estranged wife and children.”

Judge Njokweni added that Rule 43 was never intended to become “an indefinite meal ticket” for a spouse and exists only to provide fair, temporary assistance until a divorce trial determines the parties’ long-term rights.

Sowetan